OTTAWA – Canada and 13 other countries have issued a joint statement condemning the Israeli security cabinet’s approval of 19 new settlements in the occupied West Bank, calling the move a unilateral step that violates international law and risks further destabilizing the region.
The coordinated statement – signed by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom – responds to a decision Israeli officials say forms part of a multi‑year expansion drive in the territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war and claimed by Palestinians for a future state.
“We recall that such unilateral actions, as part of a wider intensification of the settlement policies in the West Bank, not only violate international law but also risk fueling instability,” the joint statement says.
The signatories urged Israel to reverse the decision and halt settlement expansion in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2334, reiterating their opposition to annexation and to projects such as the E1 settlement area and thousands of additional housing units that critics say would further fragment Palestinian territory and endanger prospects for a negotiated two‑state solution.
What Israel approved and when
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, a leading proponent of settlement growth, has presented the latest move as part of a broader effort to entrench Israeli control over the West Bank and block the emergence of a Palestinian state. He said the newest authorization brings the number of new settlements announced over the past few years to 69 – a record pace under the current government.
- Decision: Authorization and legal recognition of 19 additional settlements in the occupied West Bank, shifting several sites from de facto to formal status under Israeli administrative law.
- Timing: Smotrich’s office has said the security cabinet approved the package on Dec. 11, with the decision kept classified until it was later disclosed through government communications.
- Scope: The measure includes the retroactive legalization of long‑standing outposts and neighborhoods of existing settlements, as well as the creation of new settlements on land where Palestinians were previously evacuated, according to Israel’s Finance Ministry and public statements by Israeli officials.
- Named sites: Among the newly legalized settlements are Kadim and Ganim, two sites in the northern West Bank that were dismantled in 2005 as part of a disengagement plan that also removed Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip. Multiple attempts to resettle them have followed a 2023 repeal of parts of the 2005 disengagement law, underscoring how legal changes in the Knesset can reopen areas once slated for withdrawal.
- Scale on the ground: Individual settlements vary widely, from small clusters of homes and agricultural outposts to towns with apartment blocks and commercial zones, but all extend the network of Israeli civilian presence and associated security infrastructure across the territory.
Scale and pace of settlement expansion
Settlement monitoring groups say the decision reflects a rapid expansion under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current coalition, which is heavily backed by the settler movement and has made deepening control over the West Bank a central policy objective.
- 2022 baseline: There were 141 recognized settlements in the West Bank in 2022, according to Peace Now, an Israeli anti‑settlement watchdog.
- Current count: Following the latest approval, that number has risen to 210 – an increase Peace Now describes as nearly 50 percent during the current government’s tenure.
- Cumulative announcements: Smotrich says 69 new settlements have been approved over the past few years, a tally that far exceeds the pace of previous Israeli governments and signals a shift from piecemeal approvals to a more programmatic expansion strategy.
Beyond formal approvals, UN bodies and rights organizations have reported a sharp rise in settler violence and in construction at smaller, previously unauthorized outposts, arguing that both trends further entrench Israeli control and complicate any future territorial compromise. Diplomats say these on‑the‑ground realities are increasingly shaping how capitals assess the feasibility of a two‑state outcome, even as they continue to endorse it in principle.
International law and diplomatic context
Most of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank illegal under international law, citing the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition on transferring the population of an occupying power into occupied territory. Multiple UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 2334 in 2016, call on Israel to cease all settlement activity and characterize such construction as having “no legal validity” and constituting a “flagrant violation” under international law.
Israel disputes that interpretation, arguing that the West Bank – which it often refers to by the biblical names Judea and Samaria – is disputed rather than occupied, and that Jews have historical and religious ties to the land. Successive governments have nonetheless come under sustained diplomatic pressure over settlement construction, which critics say fragments Palestinian population centers, complicates security coordination with the Palestinian Authority and erodes the territorial continuity needed for a viable Palestinian state.
The latest approval comes as the United States presses Israel and Hamas to implement the second phase of a Gaza ceasefire that took effect on Oct. 10, built around a hostage‑prisoner exchange, expanded humanitarian access and a political track that U.S. officials say could open a “pathway” toward Palestinian statehood. Governments that oppose the settlement drive argue that each new authorization narrows the diplomatic space for such an outcome and risks derailing the broader Comprehensive Plan for Gaza referenced in the joint declaration, by sending mixed signals about Israel’s intentions on core final‑status issues.
Canada’s position and domestic signalling
From Ottawa, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand condemned the cabinet decision and aligned Canada with the broader group of signatories, framing the move as inconsistent with the rules‑based international order Canada routinely cites in its foreign‑policy statements.
Writing on X, Anand said, “The continued settlement expansion is contrary to international law and puts at risk the 20 Point Peace Plan. Clearly such action undermines the prospects for a two-state solution and the ultimate objective of Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace and security.”
Canada has repeatedly backed a two‑state solution grounded in negotiated borders and has joined past multilateral statements criticizing Israeli measures seen as entrenching occupation and accelerating settlement growth. Earlier this year, it also joined coordinated measures targeting senior Israeli officials deemed to be promoting extremist settler violence in the West Bank, reflecting growing concern in Ottawa and allied capitals about the trajectory of Israeli policy in the territory and about domestic political pressure to be seen upholding international humanitarian and human-rights law.
Status now
Smotrich’s office says the Israeli security cabinet’s approval of the 19 settlements was formally issued on Dec. 11 and kept under classification until it was made public through subsequent announcements. The joint statement from Canada and its 13 partners was released on Dec. 24, as U.S. and regional diplomacy remain focused on advancing the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire and on efforts to preserve a credible framework for a negotiated two‑state outcome that many diplomats now view as increasingly constrained by developments on the ground.
Related reading
