According to a joint statement published by GOV.UK, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway have described Israel’s decision to publish construction tenders for the E1 settlement project as unacceptable. Their position is that the move is not a routine planning step but a decision with direct diplomatic and legal consequences. The statement places the E1 project within the wider dispute over Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. In practical terms, the seven countries present the tender decision as a further obstacle to any negotiated peace settlement.
The central objection is territorial. The statement says the E1 project would drive a wedge through the West Bank and damage the territorial contiguity of the Palestinian Territories. In practical terms, that means the signatories believe the plan would make a future Palestinian state harder to establish as a continuous and workable territory. That point is tied directly to the two-state solution. If land is further fragmented, the practical basis for two states living side by side becomes weaker, even if formal diplomatic commitments remain in place.
The legal claim in the statement is set out without ambiguity. It says Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law and notes that this position has been reaffirmed by the United Nations Security Council. That wording matters because it frames the issue not simply as a political disagreement, but as a question of compliance with established international rules. This is the operative line in the text. It signals that the signatories are restating the legal foundation on which diplomatic pressure, business warnings and further multilateral action could rest.
The statement also links the E1 decision to current conditions on the ground. It refers to grave instability in the West Bank, unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians, and serious restrictions on the Palestinian economy. By placing those factors alongside the tender decision, the seven leaders argue that the timing makes the move more serious. This matters because the criticism is not limited to long-term diplomacy. The text presents settlement expansion as a measure that can worsen immediate security conditions, civilian protection concerns and economic pressure at the same time.
The signatories then move from diagnosis to demand. They urge the Government of Israel to retract the plans immediately and to end settlement expansion in the West Bank. The statement says continued expansion would take the parties further from peace and would also weaken Israel’s international standing. That reference to international standing is a diplomatic warning as much as a political one. It points to possible costs in bilateral relations, multilateral forums and external assessments of Israel’s adherence to international law.
One of the sharpest passages is directed at the private sector. The statement says businesses should not consider bidding for the construction tenders and should weigh the legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of becoming involved in serious breaches of international law. For companies, that amounts to public due-diligence guidance from seven states. It suggests that participation in the project could create exposure that reaches beyond ordinary commercial risk.
The closing section returns to the long-standing objective of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on a two-state solution. The seven leaders say they will continue to act in support of that outcome, presenting the statement as part of an established policy line rather than a one-off intervention. Read as a whole, the message is clear and tightly framed. The governments involved are treating the E1 tender decision as a legal, territorial, economic and diplomatic problem at once, and are using unusually direct language to discourage both further state action and commercial participation.