E1 Housing Near Jerusalem: The Case Against UK Sanctions - Why Jews cannot live near their capital
By Uri Pilichowski
Britain’s response to the E1 settlement project must account for Israeli security and Jewish historical ties alongside Palestinian claims.
Britain’s confrontation with Israel over housing east of Jerusalem has moved beyond diplomatic warnings. On September 8, the British government announced plans to ban imports from Israeli settlements and target businesses supporting settlement activity. Israel responded with measures against Britain’s diplomatic presence in Jerusalem.
The E1 settlement project is central to that dispute. Britain argues that construction between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim threatens a viable Palestinian state. Supporters see housing beside an established Israeli city and a stronger connection to the capital.
There are serious questions about borders, access and the rights of existing residents. But sanctions are a blunt answer to them. British policy should reckon with Israeli interests in these hills as seriously as it does with Palestinian aspirations.
What is the E1 settlement project?
E1 is an area of roughly 12 square kilometers between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, an Israeli city with more than 40,000 residents. It lies in the West Bank, within Ma’ale Adumim’s municipal jurisdiction, outside Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries.
That distinction matters. Calling E1 Jerusalem’s outskirts describes its proximity; it does not settle its legal status. Equally, describing it simply as a distant settlement obscures its relationship to a major Israeli population center.
The project would strengthen the connection between Ma’ale Adumim and Jerusalem. Its supporters argue that this connection serves housing, transport and security needs. Opponents contend that construction would damage Palestinian territorial continuity and access to East Jerusalem.
Neither concern disappears because the other exists. Any credible assessment must examine the actual development plans, road network and consequences for people living nearby.
The E1 tender has advanced, but construction is not finally approved
Israel’s plans cover approximately 3,400 homes. A tender issued on August 18 concerns 1,234 of them, with bids due October 19.
On September 8, the Jerusalem District Court allowed the tender to proceed while leaving the underlying legal challenges unresolved. The ruling permits the search for developers; it does not constitute final approval to build. Three petitions remain pending, and contractors would still need the necessary permits.
That is an important distinction for both supporters and critics. The government has advanced E1, but the courts have not settled the project’s legality.
Palestinian residents and Israeli organizations argue that the plans would harm surrounding communities. The state and Ma’ale Adumim reject the allegations and defend the planning process. Those claims deserve examination on their merits.
Why Britain’s sanctions deserve scrutiny
Britain’s stated objections concern international law, settlement expansion and the future of a Palestinian state. They should be represented accurately. The British government’s September 8 statement commits to bringing forward national measures against settlement trade; the announcement should not be confused with every restriction already being in force.
The legal objection is substantial. In its 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice found Israel’s settlement policy contrary to international law. Israel rejects that position. Israeli administration of Area C does not itself establish sovereignty, and Jewish historical attachment does not resolve every modern property dispute.
Yet acknowledging the legal argument does not end the policy debate. Britain must still explain how sanctions will produce an arrangement that protects Israelis and Palestinians.
Jewish attachment to Jerusalem and the surrounding landscape is not incidental to that discussion. Nor can the needs of Ma’ale Adumim’s residents simply be suspended until a comprehensive peace agreement arrives. A policy that asks Israel to accept lasting uncertainty should explain what credible security and political arrangements it offers in return.
Palestinian access and Israeli security both require answers
Supporters of E1 point to alternative roads as evidence that Palestinian movement can continue. But road access and territorial continuity are different questions. A route may remain open while access to employment, services or neighboring communities becomes more difficult.
The stronger case for E1 would therefore demonstrate how Palestinian movement could be protected, rather than dismissing the issue as invented. It would also address the rights of Palestinian Bedouin communities around the project. Largely undeveloped land is not necessarily land without residents, livelihoods or competing claims.
Israel’s security concerns require the same seriousness. The 2005 Gaza withdrawal was unilateral, not a negotiated peace agreement. Its aftermath nevertheless gives Israelis reason to demand evidence that future territorial arrangements will deliver security.
As MidEast Journal’s earlier examination of the Palestinian Authority’s capacity to govern Gaza illustrates, the institutions expected to exercise authority matter alongside the proposed borders. A diplomatic promise needs a government capable of enforcing it.
A stronger case for housing near Jerusalem
The argument for E1 should rest on a defensible plan: housing needs, reliable transport, Israeli security, lawful procedures and protection for existing communities.
That case is weakened when construction is celebrated primarily as a means of preventing Palestinian statehood. Such rhetoric invites opponents to judge every home as an instrument of permanent conflict. Supporters should explain what the project makes possible for residents and how its costs would be addressed.
Britain, in turn, should explain what its sanctions are meant to achieve beyond demonstrating disapproval. A workable settlement must accommodate Jewish life around Jerusalem while protecting Palestinian rights and access.
E1 demands serious planning and honest argument. Sanctions cannot substitute for either.