Palestine’s Territory Cannot Be Redrawn Through the E1 Plan

The question surrounding Israel’s E1 settlement project is much larger than the construction of another cluster of housing units in the occupied West Bank. At stake is the physical geography on which any future Palestinian state would have to exist. If territorial contiguity is steadily broken by settlement expansion, roads, administrative controls and disconnected enclaves, the promise of a two-state solution risks becoming little more than diplomatic language detached from realities on the ground.

Pakistan’s position on Palestine remains consistent. Islamabad supports the establishment of an independent, sovereign, contiguous and viable Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. Pakistan reiterated this position again in 2026, stressing that Palestinian self-determination must ultimately lead to meaningful statehood rather than remain an indefinitely postponed political aspiration.

The E1 project directly challenges that objective.

Located between occupied East Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement bloc, the E1 area occupies one of the most strategically sensitive points in the West Bank. Construction there would not simply create additional Israeli housing. Its geopolitical importance comes from the way it could further separate East Jerusalem from the surrounding Palestinian areas while weakening the territorial connection between the northern and southern West Bank.

That is why the latest tendering process has generated such concern. In August 2026, a tender covering 1,234 housing units was opened. In September, another tender covering 2,167 units followed, bringing the planned total to 3,401 units. Critics argue that the cumulative effect would further fragment Palestinian territory and make the geography required for a viable Palestinian state increasingly difficult to preserve.

The legal context is equally important. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 states clearly that Israeli settlements established in territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of international law. The resolution also says that the international community will not recognize changes to the June 1967 lines, including those affecting Jerusalem, unless agreed through negotiations between the parties.

E1 therefore cannot be treated merely as another dispute over construction permits. It raises the more fundamental question of whether territorial outcomes can effectively be determined by creating irreversible facts on the ground before negotiations ever produce a final settlement.

Pakistan and several major Muslim countries have already taken an unequivocal position. On 21 August 2026, the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Egypt, Türkiye, Indonesia, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates jointly rejected the E1 plan and related settlement activity east of occupied East Jerusalem. Their statement warned that such policies threaten Palestinian rights, violate international law and endanger prospects for regional peace.

The issue has also moved beyond traditional diplomatic condemnation. In September, twelve countries including Canada, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom announced that they intended either to introduce national restrictions or support European restrictions on trade in goods originating from Israeli settlements. Their declaration explicitly connected settlement expansion, including E1, with the deterioration of prospects for a two-state solution.

This is significant because diplomatic statements alone have failed for decades to halt settlement expansion. When countries begin distinguishing economically and legally between Israel and settlements located in occupied territory, they move closer to implementing the distinction already envisaged by Resolution 2334.

Political frustration is also increasingly visible at international forums. During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the UN General Assembly on 24 September, dozens of delegates walked out of the hall. Whatever interpretations are attached to such gestures, the episode demonstrated the widening diplomatic opposition facing Israeli policies concerning Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories.

E1 becomes even more consequential when viewed alongside the broader Palestinian crisis. Gaza cannot be politically or geographically separated from the West Bank and East Jerusalem if a viable Palestinian state is ever to emerge. Reconstruction, governance arrangements and international peace initiatives will therefore remain incomplete unless they preserve Palestinian territorial integrity and provide a credible pathway towards self-determination.

Any international mechanism supporting a Gaza peace plan should reinforce this principle rather than create a substitute for Palestinian statehood. Humanitarian stabilization is essential, but humanitarian arrangements cannot replace a political settlement. Reconstruction without sovereignty would leave the underlying conflict unresolved.

The central principle is straightforward. Geography matters.

A state cannot function if its territory is progressively divided into disconnected spaces. Political sovereignty cannot meaningfully exist without territorial continuity, access, economic viability and the ability of people to move between their principal population centres. Playing with the geography of Palestine therefore means playing with the foundations of the very state that the international community repeatedly claims to support.

E1 consequently presents a test not simply for Palestinians and Israelis, but for the international system itself. Either international law and UN resolutions have practical consequences, or territorial realities can be altered incrementally until negotiated solutions become physically impossible.

For Pakistan, the answer should remain clear. Settlement expansion must not be allowed to redraw Palestinian territory by fait accompli. The E1 project should be halted, Palestinian civilians and territorial integrity must be protected, and diplomacy must remain directed toward an independent, sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.