The Jerusalem District Court has dismissed a request by three organizations and associations—Ir Amim, Bimkom - Planners for Planning Rights, and Peace Now (in conjunction with Palestinian residents)—to issue an interim injunction freezing the tender for the construction of 1,234 housing units in the area known as E1, located between Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem. The consolidated petitions against the project sought to immediately halt the tender process, arguing that its publication occurred without prior notice in breach of previous commitments, and that continuing actions while the petitions are pending could create facts on the ground that would prevent effective judicial relief.
Judge Nimrod Flax clarified in his decision that there is no justification for an interim injunction at this stage. His primary reasoning was based on the assessment that a significant amount of time is expected to pass before any physical work begins on-site, and that the petitions themselves will likely be ruled upon by the court before that stage is reached. Furthermore, the ruling emphasized that the State has committed not to raise arguments regarding a "fait accompli" due to the progression of the tender. Additionally, the court noted that the tender documents explicitly informed potential bidders of pending legal proceedings and that their rights as winners would be subject to any court rulings in the case.
The petitioner organizations criticized the decision, arguing that the government is taking advantage of the end of its term to establish facts on the ground. Concurrent with the legal proceedings, the E1 construction plan remains a focal point of widespread international criticism. According to Ynet reports, 21 countries, including the United Kingdom and France, have characterized the advancement of construction as a step that undermines the possibility of a political solution. The United Kingdom is reportedly considering taking measures and sanctions against the backdrop of settlement policy. The legal decision allows the tender to proceed but leaves the underlying legality and validity of the plan for further deliberation by the court within the framework of the primary petitions.