Israel’s E1 Plan: Redrawing Palestine Before Peace Can Be Negotiated

Nadeem Afzal is a lawyer and human rights practitioner.

The future of Palestinian statehood is increasingly being shaped not at the negotiating table, but through decisions altering the geography of the occupied West Bank. Israel’s advancement of the E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem illustrates this reality. While international diplomacy continues to endorse a two-state solution, settlement expansion threatens to transform the territorial foundations necessary for its implementation.

For Pakistan, which has consistently supported an independent, sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, the issue extends beyond another controversial construction project. It concerns whether territorial changes imposed under occupation can progressively undermine a people’s right to self-determination.

E1 and the Geography of Palestinian Statehood

E1, or East 1, covers approximately 12 square kilometers between occupied East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Adumim. Its strategic importance lies in its position near the corridor connecting the northern and southern West Bank.

Israeli development in this area could further isolate East Jerusalem from Palestinian communities and restrict geographical continuity across the West Bank. Even where alternative transport arrangements remain possible, externally controlled connections cannot necessarily substitute for territorial sovereignty.

The project involves approximately 3,401 housing units. Israel advanced tenders for 1,234 units in August 2026 and another 2,167 in September. According to Reuters, these developments intensified concerns about the viability of a future Palestinian state.

Israeli officials have defended settlement development through historical, housing and security arguments. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has also openly associated E1 with preventing Palestinian statehood.

The controversy therefore concerns more than residential construction. Infrastructure, territorial access and administrative control can shape political outcomes long before formal negotiations determine borders.

International Law and the Problem of Enforcement

The legal framework governing Israeli settlements is established.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, affirmed that settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a violation of international law. It also rejected unilateral changes to the June 1967 lines unless agreed through negotiations.

The International Court of Justice reinforced these principles in its July 2024 advisory opinion, concluding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful. The Court emphasized that the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza constitute a single territorial unit whose integrity must be respected.

Although advisory opinions are not binding judgments between disputing parties, they provide authoritative interpretations of international legal obligations.

Yet the central weakness of the international response remains enforcement. Legal findings have not prevented continued settlement expansion, land restrictions or growing Israeli administrative control.

The United Nations has also warned that settlement growth, settler violence and restrictions on Palestinian access to land undermine the viability of an independent Palestinian state.

E1 exposes this contradiction: international institutions continue to defend Palestinian territorial integrity while decisions on the ground threaten to weaken it.

Pakistan’s Diplomatic Position and Regional Cooperation

Pakistan’s opposition to E1 reflects its longstanding position that Palestinian independence must include meaningful sovereignty over contiguous territory.

On August 21, 2026, Pakistan joined Egypt, Türkiye, Indonesia, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a joint declaration rejecting the project.

The eight governments demanded an immediate halt to E1, the reversal of related measures and an end to settlement activities altering the occupied territory’s geographical and demographic character.

Their declaration also supported appropriate accountability measures against individuals and entities involved in settlement expansion.

The coalition’s significance lies in its diverse diplomatic relationships. Egypt and Jordan maintain peace treaties with Israel, while the UAE has formal relations. Pakistan does not recognize Israel, and other participants possess different forms of regional influence.

This diversity creates opportunities for complementary diplomatic engagement, although common opposition does not automatically establish a coordinated enforcement strategy.

A further development followed on September 9, when the same eight governments welcomed Western initiatives concerning settlement trade and called for concrete action against activities supporting illegal settlements.

That statement established an explicit diplomatic connection between regional opposition and emerging Western economic measures.

From Condemnation to Economic Measures

On September 8, twelve countries, including Britain, France, Canada, Spain and Norway, announced varying commitments to introduce, support or consider restrictions on trade involving Israeli settlements.

These were not identical national trade bans. Some governments had adopted relevant measures, while others were pursuing legislation or considering restrictions.

Nevertheless, the initiative introduced a practical dimension to international opposition.

Trade-origin verification can distinguish goods produced in settlements from products originating within Israel’s internationally recognized territory. Where legally authorized, import restrictions can impose commercial consequences on settlement-linked activities.

These measures would not automatically halt E1 construction. Their significance lies in translating legal distinctions into government policy.

For Pakistan and its regional partners, Western economic initiatives provide an opportunity to reinforce diplomatic objections through engagement with governments possessing regulatory and commercial leverage.

Gaza, the Board of Peace and Territorial Unity

The E1 dispute cannot be separated from Gaza’s political future.

Pakistan has linked its participation in the Gaza Peace Plan and Board of Peace to humanitarian recovery, reconstruction and a credible pathway toward Palestinian self-determination.

In a September 22 joint statement, Pakistan and its seven regional partners emphasized that Gaza must remain integral to Palestinian territory and that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan should support the political reunification of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

This connection is essential. Reconstruction in Gaza cannot independently secure Palestinian sovereignty if territorial fragmentation continues elsewhere.

The Board of Peace can contribute to reconstruction and governance arrangements, but such initiatives must remain connected to Palestinian political rights and a viable two-state settlement.

A durable agreement must also address Israeli security concerns, Palestinian governance and civilian protection.

The Territorial Test of the Two-State Solution

E1 presents the international community with a challenge extending beyond one settlement project.

Preserving Palestinian statehood requires protecting the territorial conditions necessary for sovereignty, economic viability and political independence.

Pakistan’s diplomatic engagement, regional coordination and Western settlement-related trade initiatives offer different instruments for addressing this challenge. Their effectiveness depends on sustained implementation and willingness to translate legal commitments into practical measures.

The two-state solution cannot remain credible if the geographical foundations required to sustain it are progressively weakened.

The decisive question is whether international diplomacy can prevent unilateral territorial changes from determining Palestine’s political future before a negotiated settlement becomes possible.

Nadeem Afzal is a lawyer and human rights practitioner. His areas of expertise include terrorism, cybersecurity, and emerging issues in South Asia and the Middle East.

References

1. International Court of Justice. (2024, July 19). Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. Advisory Opinion.
2. United Nations Security Council. (2016, December 23). Resolution 2334 (2016): Illegality of Israeli Settlements.
3. UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2026, August 21). Joint Statement by Foreign Ministers of Eight Arab-Islamic States Rejecting the E1 Settlement Plan.
4. Reuters. (2026, September 17). Israel adds tender for 2,167 housing units to settlement expansion plan, rights groups say.
5. Global Affairs Canada. (2026, September 8). Joint Statement of Twelve Foreign Ministers on the Two-State Solution.
6. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan. (2026, September 9). Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE.
7. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan. (2026, September 22). Joint Statement of Eight Arab-Islamic Foreign Ministers on the Comprehensive Plan and Board of Peace.
8. United Nations Secretary-General. (2026, June 24). Implementation of Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016): Report of the Secretary-General.