The approval of nineteen new settlements in the occupied West Bank by Israel’s security cabinet has sparked a wave of international condemnation, underscoring escalating tensions and raising serious doubts about the viability of a two-state solution. A joint statement released on Christmas Eve by a coalition of nations, including Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, voiced profound concern over what they described as a broader pattern of intensifying settlement policies.
The statement explicitly criticized the actions as a violation of international law, warning that such unilateral measures risk exacerbating regional instability. Beyond the immediate legal concerns, the nations expressed apprehension that the expansion of settlements, particularly the sensitive E1 area, actively obstructs the implementation of plans for Gaza and fundamentally undermines the prospects for long-term peace and security.
The signatory governments reaffirmed their unwavering opposition to all forms of annexation and the continued expansion of settlements, directly calling on Israel to reverse its recent decisions and halt further settlement expansion in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. This resolution, passed in 2016, condemns settlement activity and demands its cessation.
The collective statement emphasized the enduring support for the Palestinian right to self-determination, reiterating a commitment to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace predicated on a two-state solution. Underscoring the perceived lack of alternative strategies, the nations asserted that a negotiated two-state solution, leading to the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine within secure and recognized borders, remains the only viable path forward. The increasingly frequent and blatant expansion of settlements, however, now presents a significant geopolitical challenge to that stated goal, placing a strain on international relations and raising questions about the efficacy of diplomatic pressure.
