The E1 settlement plan looks less like another round of Israeli settlement expansion and more like a test of whether Arab and international positions can move from condemnation to real pressure, analysts say.
اضافة اعلان
A joint statement issued Friday by the foreign ministers of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan expressed a unified Arab and Islamic position on the E1 plan and West Bank settlement activity.
The statement warned of the plan's implications for the two-state solution and called for international action, including accountability measures against entities, individuals and companies supporting settlement activity.
Political and strategic analysts told Al-Ghad that the joint statement opens a path toward accountability, sanctions and raising the political and economic cost of settlement activity, but its effectiveness depends on translating these positions into concrete action, particularly from the United States.
The analysts warn that implementing E1 would reshape the geography of the West Bank and cut the link between its northern and southern halves, weakening the prospects for a viable Palestinian state and pushing the two-state solution toward a reality that becomes difficult to implement.
Its consequences, they say, would also touch Jordan directly, both politically and in security terms, making a halt to the plan a test of the international community's ability to prevent a new reality from being imposed on the ground.
Raising the Cost of Israeli Behavior
Security and strategic affairs expert Dr. Bashir al-Dajah said the statement marks a significant shift in how settlement activity is being approached, since it went beyond condemnation to call for international measures, accountability and sanctions against entities, individuals and companies backing settlement activity.
Al-Dajah said the step's significance lies in gradually shifting the issue from political rhetoric toward an attempt to raise the cost of Israeli behavior, by building an economic and legal deterrent alongside political pressure. The statement's real value, he said, will depend on whether it can be turned into a coordinated coalition of diplomatic, legal and economic pressure.
He said the participating countries can use their tools within the United Nations, pressure Western capitals, and call on companies to withdraw from settlement projects, alongside activating boycott mechanisms and individual sanctions, and tying any new Israeli steps in the West Bank to a clear political and economic cost. Coordinated action, he said, would carry more weight than traditional condemnation statements.
On the American position, al-Dajah said Washington's rejection of West Bank annexation opens a political window that Arab, Islamic and European countries can build on, but it doesn't necessarily signal that the United States is ready to impose sanctions on Israel over settlement activity.
He noted that the real test of the American position won't come through statements, but through Washington's willingness to use its political and diplomatic weight to prevent projects like E1 from proceeding if they come to directly threaten the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
He warned of the gap between rejecting formal annexation and actually stopping annexation on the ground, explaining that continued settlement construction, road-building, infrastructure expansion, linking settlements to transport and service networks, and imposing administrative control over land can produce a reality close to annexation, even without an official declaration.
Al-Dajah said the E1 plan poses an exceptional risk to the two-state solution given its strategic location between East Jerusalem and the Ma'ale Adumim settlement, and its potential effect on geographic contiguity between the northern and southern West Bank.
Geography and Politics
Al-Dajah said implementing the plan would turn geography into a political tool by cutting the West Bank into separate blocs and linking settlements through Israeli road and infrastructure networks, making a geographically contiguous, viable Palestinian state harder to achieve.
He cautioned that proceeding with E1 could shift the Palestinian question from a dispute over final borders to a dispute over whether a state can exist at all, as room to maneuver toward any future settlement narrows.
Combining settlement activity with road networks, infrastructure, administrative measures and land control, he said, makes annexation gradual and tangible, even without a formal Israeli declaration of sovereignty over the West Bank.
On the Jordanian level, al-Dajah said the consequences of this path go beyond the Palestinian file to the core of Jordan's national security, since any fundamental change in the control, geography, population, roads and security structure of the West Bank would affect the strategic environment surrounding the Kingdom.
He noted that Jordan has a direct interest in preventing the West Bank from becoming a fragmented space lacking geographic and political contiguity, since undermining the prospects for a viable Palestinian state could raise the risk of chaos, tension and violence. Any attempt to impose solutions based on displacement or the forced transfer of population, he said, constitutes a national security issue for Jordan.
Al-Dajah said Jordan has an opportunity to expand its diplomatic efforts in coordination with Arab, Islamic and European countries that have begun taking a firmer stance on E1, arguing that building a broader international bloc could raise the cost of the project and prevent a geographic reality from becoming entrenched in ways that would later be difficult to reverse.
He added that the battle over E1 isn't just about the number of settlement units, but about the future political map of the West Bank and Jerusalem, the possibility of a Palestinian state, and regional security.
Moving from condemnation to pressure, he said, has become a necessity, and what's needed is tying settlement activity to a clear political, economic and legal cost.
He stressed that Jordan has a strategic interest in leading a gradual diplomatic effort with Arab, Islamic and European states to make halting E1 a genuine international test, since preventing this reality from taking hold means not only protecting the two-state solution but also avoiding a stage where the reality imposed on the ground becomes stronger than any possible political settlement.
A Policy of Annexation by Increments
Assessing the dimensions and likely trajectory of this move, military and strategic affairs expert Dr. Nidal Abu Zeid said the E1 settlement plan is part of a deliberate Israeli push to alter the geographic reality of the West Bank, noting that the settlements built in the area between the northern and southern West Bank are designed to sever the connection between them and strengthen Israeli control.
Abu Zeid said settlement expansion in this area isn't new, but fits within an Israeli plan for gradual annexation. He pointed to the repeal of Jordanian land law in the West Bank, along with the amendment or activation of laws related to land prescription in areas such as Qalandia, as developments opening the door to settlement expansion that could lead to what he called "annexation by increments."
On the American position, Abu Zeid said Washington doesn't reject the principle of Israeli annexation of the West Bank so much as it disagrees with the Israeli government over its form and mechanisms.
He explained that the United States may push toward gradual, partial annexation through outposts and settlements that are then expanded, creating scattered annexed zones and cutting up the West Bank geographically, rather than a comprehensive, declared annexation.
He warned that the current Israeli push to expand E1 settlements aims to carve up Area C, which makes up about 60 percent of the West Bank's territory, as part of an effort to dominate it and impose a new reality on the ground.
He noted that Israel is using diplomatic,security and military tools to this end, alongside deploying settler groups in grazing areas east of the West Bank, aiming to create a new security and geographic reality that paves the way for completing the annexation process.
Electoral Calculations
Abu Zeid believes the Israeli government is seeking to turn these steps into a political achievement that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can use domestically ahead of elections scheduled for late October, making the E1 plan part of a broader effort to redraw the map of the West Bank.
At the same time, he said Jordan's response isn't merely reactive but part of a sustained diplomatic pressure track aimed at building a counterweight against Israel.
This effort, combined with the European position, he said, could affect the pace of annexation by delaying it, though it won't be enough to stop it altogether as long as the current Israeli government and its hardline positions remain in place.
He noted that Jordan has succeeded in winning over the European position, providing important diplomatic leverage, pointing to Britain's rejection of the annexation and expansion of the E1 areas as a sign of growing international opposition to these measures.
On the two-state solution, Abu Zeid said it "no longer exists on the ground," given continued settlement expansion and the rise of far-right currents within the Israeli government. He argued that the continuation of these policies is effectively undermining the geographic and political foundation the two-state solution rests on, imposing a new reality that will be difficult to reverse.
Growing Arab Awareness
Assessing the prospects of this diplomatic effort and its capacity to influence Israel's course, Dr. Badr al-Madi, professor of political science at German Jordanian University, said the foreign ministers' joint statement marks an important step at this stage.
He noted that it reflects growing awareness among the participating states of the danger posed by Israeli policies and their implications for the Palestinian people's future and the establishment of a Palestinian state, as well as their potential impact on the security and stability of the entire region.
Al-Madi said the central challenge lies in whether these political positions can translate into concrete steps and meaningful pressure on Israel. He said achieving that remains difficult without sufficient American pressure to change Israeli behavior, despite clear European and American opposition to some annexation and settlement measures.
He warned that proceeding with E1 would open the door to undermining the two-state solution and imposing a new geographic reality built on squeezing Palestinians and closing off any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. These measures, he said, send a clear message that Israel is working to shut down any political horizon for a resolution.
Al-Madi said the consequences of this path won't be confined to Palestinian territory but will extend directly to Jordan, given what he described as Israeli attempts to shift the burdens of the Palestinian issue, including its political, demographic and security dimensions, onto Jordan, which could place additional strain on the Kingdom's security and stability.
He noted that the continuation of these policies could open the door to Israeli pressure aimed at influencing Jordan's political conduct, potentially extending to attempts to destabilize its security, which makes addressing the consequences of settlement and annexation a matter of direct political and security concern for Jordan.
Al-Madi said Jordan will continue using its political and diplomatic tools, including its relationships with the United States and European countries, to underscore the danger of Israeli policies and push for a more effective international stance, working toward a just and comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue that guarantees the establishment of a Palestinian state and prevents a new reality from being imposed on the ground.
Source: Analysis based on the joint statement issued August 21, 2026, by the foreign ministers of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan, with commentary from named experts speaking to Al-Ghad.
