In a joint statement published by the UK Government, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway said Israel's decision to publish construction tenders for the E1 settlement project was unacceptable. The wording was direct and unusually practical in its reach, combining a diplomatic rebuke with a warning to private-sector bidders. The statement presents the issue as more than a planning dispute. It treats the E1 move as a policy decision with consequences for peace talks, international law and commercial conduct.
The central concern set out by the seven governments is that the E1 project would damage the prospect of a two-state solution. Their argument is that building in this area would drive a wedge through the West Bank and weaken the territorial continuity that would be needed for a viable Palestinian state. Put plainly, the statement is warning that a future negotiated settlement becomes harder to sustain if key parts of the Palestinian Territories are made less geographically connected. That is why the signatories frame E1 as a strategic issue, not simply a local construction question.
The legal position in the statement is also explicit. The signatories restate the long-standing view of the international community that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, and they note that this position has been reaffirmed by the United Nations Security Council. That matters because it places the E1 tenders within an established international legal dispute rather than a narrow bilateral disagreement. In policy terms, the statement is telling officials, companies and investors that E1 should be read through the lens of legal exposure as well as diplomacy.
The timing is presented as making the decision more serious. The statement points to what it describes as grave instability in the West Bank, including unprecedented levels of settler violence against civilians and serious restrictions on the Palestinian economy. By linking the tender decision to that wider context, the seven governments are arguing that the move risks adding pressure to an already volatile situation. The message is that settlement expansion cannot be separated from present security conditions or from the day-to-day economic constraints facing Palestinians.
The signatories call on the Israeli Government to retract the plans immediately and to end the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. They also connect the decision to Israel's wider diplomatic position, saying the move would take the parties further from peace and further weaken Israel's international standing. That phrasing is significant. It signals that the objection is not limited to legal doctrine or peace process language, but extends to how Israel is viewed by close partners across Europe and North America.
One of the clearest practical messages in the statement is directed at business. Companies are told not to consider bidding for construction tenders linked to E1 and are warned about legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of involvement in serious breaches of international law. For firms, that is a straightforward due diligence warning from seven allied governments. Any company considering participation would be expected to examine legal advice, internal compliance standards and board-level risk before moving forward. The statement makes clear that commercial involvement in E1 is not being treated as routine market activity.
The statement closes by restating support for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on a two-state solution, and by saying the signatories will continue to act in support of that objective. In Policy Wire terms, the practical reading is clear: the governments are pairing diplomatic pressure with a commercial warning in an attempt to raise the cost of proceeding with E1. As published by the UK Government, the intervention is designed to clarify three points for readers. First, the E1 plan is viewed as a direct obstacle to a two-state settlement. Second, the legal objection to West Bank settlements remains unchanged. Third, private companies are now being told, in public, that participation carries material risk.