Israel moves forward with internationally condemned settlement plan that could ‘bury’ two-state solution

Israel Opens Bidding for Over 1,200 Homes in Contested E1 Corridor Near Jerusalem

Activelifezero.com – The Israeli Housing Ministry has published a tender inviting contractors to build more than 1,200 residential units in the E1 area, a narrow strip of land running between East Jerusalem and the northern West Bank. The move, which lands just one week before Israel’s parliamentary elections scheduled for late October, has drawn sharp condemnation from Western capitals, Arab governments, and Palestinian officials who warn the project would effectively sever the West Bank into two disconnected halves and render a contiguous Palestinian state geographically unworkable.

What E1 Means on the Map

E1 sits in a corridor that, if developed into a continuous chain of Jewish settlements stretching from East Jerusalem westward into the West Bank, would physically bisect the territory. The northern portion of the West Bank would be cut off from the southern portion, and East Jerusalem — widely regarded as the prospective capital of any future Palestinian state — would be severed from the rest of the land. Planners behind the scheme describe the goal as creating an unbroken bloc of settlements linking the two areas, a configuration that would make any future Palestinian state non-contiguous and, in the view of critics, impossible to govern as a single entity.

For years, successive Israeli governments deliberately held back from advancing planning or construction in E1, citing the weight of international criticism and diplomatic pressure. The current administration under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reversed that caution, fast-tracking settlement approvals across the occupied West Bank even as Western nations have moved to sanction individuals connected with the settler movement.

International Outcry

The reaction from abroad has been swift and layered. In May, Canada, Australia, and Germany issued a joint warning urging companies to stay away from construction work on West Bank settlements and in E1 specifically, citing potential “legal and reputational consequences” for firms involved. On Thursday, the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, and the Netherlands issued a joint statement reiterating that caution:

“At a time of grave instability in the West Bank with unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians, and serious restrictions on the Palestinian economy, this decision is even more concerning.”

The following day, the European Commission along with Greece, Austria, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden added their names to the statement, broadening the coalition of objectors. Canada separately advised its own businesses not to “participate in activities that directly or indirectly support or facilitate illegal Israeli settlements and associated violence.”

UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband labeled the decision to press ahead with the E1 plans an “unacceptable and destructive act” and threatened further measures, declaring:

“Britain will not stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar pushed back on X on Thursday, dismissing the British intervention:

“It is absurd for Britain to lecture the Jewish people about where they may live in their historic tiny homeland.”

Domestic Political Calculus

Peace Now, an Israeli watchdog organization tracking settlement activity, characterized the timing of the tender as deliberate:

“This is a last-minute maneuver that is part of the scorched-earth policy the government is pursuing at the end of its term to secure long years of conflict and bloodshed for Israel.”

The bid deadline falling days before the elections underscores the perception that the Netanyahu government is using its remaining weeks in office to lock in irreversible changes on the ground — changes that any successor government, regardless of political orientation, would find difficult to unwind once construction contracts are signed and foundations poured.

The E1 plan received final governmental approval last year. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who oversees settlement policy, framed the decision in stark terms at the time:

“The Palestinian state is being erased from the table, not with slogans, but with actions.”

Palestinian and Egyptian Responses

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, told CNN in an interview that Israel’s decision to move forward with E1 construction is “extremely dangerous, irresponsible, and threatening,” adding emphatically, “This has to be stopped.”

Cairo weighed in with its own formal statement, calling on the international community to intervene:

“Egypt expresses its complete rejection of attempts to entrench a policy of fait accompli through the illegal expansion of settlements and the change of the legal status and demographic makeup of occupied Palestinian territory, which undermines the chances of implementing the two-state solution.”

Legal and Historical Context

Under prevailing interpretations of international law endorsed by most member states and by United Nations resolutions, all Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are deemed illegal. Yet in recent years, settlers have established dozens of unauthorized outposts across the territory, many of which were later regularized through Israeli government approvals — a pattern that critics argue normalizes incremental territorial changes while formal objections are lodged in diplomatic channels.

The E1 corridor represents the most consequential single piece of that incremental puzzle. Unlike smaller outposts that can be negotiated around in a future border arrangement, a built-up settlement bloc spanning the full width of the corridor would eliminate the geographic possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state altogether. That is precisely why the tender has triggered a level of coordinated diplomatic response rarely seen over a single planning notice, and why observers on both sides of the dispute regard the coming weeks — between the bid deadline and the election — as a narrow window in which the shape of the territory may be permanently altered.