UK and allies condemn 19 new West Bank settlements
If you’re following the Israel–Palestine story, here’s the update you need. On 24 December 2025, the UK and thirteen partners condemned Israel’s approval of 19 new settlements in the occupied West Bank and urged a reversal in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The joint text, published by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, frames the move as a breach of international law and a risk to regional stability.
What exactly was approved? Israeli officials say the security cabinet took the decision earlier in December. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said it lifts the recent total of new settlements to 69 and includes the legalisation of previously evacuated sites such as Kadim and Ganim. Independent reporting describes the effect as a near 50% rise in settlements during the current government’s term.
When you read about ‘settlements’ and ‘outposts’, it helps to separate the terms. Settlements are Israeli communities established in territory captured in 1967; most governments and the United Nations consider them illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Outposts are built without formal authorisation under Israeli law and are sometimes later legalised. UN monitors and reporters have also tracked a rise in outposts and violence around them this year.
This is why Resolution 2334 keeps appearing in headlines. Passed on 23 December 2016 by a 14–0 vote, with the United States abstaining, it reaffirms that settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law. It also calls on states to distinguish, in their dealings, between Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.
You’ll also see E1 mentioned. E1 is a 12 km² tract between East Jerusalem and the settlement city of Ma’ale Adumim. Building thousands of homes there would connect the two and, critics say, risk slicing the West Bank into northern and southern sections, making a contiguous Palestinian state far harder to achieve. Supporters argue E1 answers housing and security needs near Jerusalem.
The joint statement links settlement expansion to a wider diplomatic effort around Gaza, warning it could undermine that work. Public outlines of the current ceasefire framework describe phases, with a second phase intended to move towards further withdrawals and the release of remaining hostages if conditions are met. That sequencing is one reason allies connect settlement decisions to regional stability.
Scale matters for your analysis. Reporters and officials estimate around 750,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem alongside roughly 3 million Palestinians-figures that illustrate why any new approvals draw international attention.
The UK and its partners restate a clear position: oppose annexation in any form, object to expansion including E1, and support Palestinians’ right to self‑determination through a negotiated two‑state outcome in which Israel and Palestine live side‑by‑side within secure, recognised borders. Their request this week is straightforward-reverse the approvals.
Israeli ministers set out a different case. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar rejected the condemnation and framed the approvals as addressing security threats; supporters also argue that regularising long‑standing outposts brings clarity under Israeli law. Senior coalition figures have additionally presented expansion as a way to block a future Palestinian state.
If you’re teaching this, treat it as a live reading exercise. Start with the date-24 December 2025 for the joint statement-then compare its wording with Resolution 2334. Map E1 to see why ‘contiguity’ matters. Finally, note how terms such as ‘approval’, ‘legalisation’, ‘state land’ and ‘security’ frame the debate, and ask students how those words shape what they think a two‑state solution would need in practice.