The dangers of political ambiguity

Israel has already violated the terms of the ceasefire, including imposing restrictions on the entrance of humanitarian aid into Gaza and thus splintering the diplomatic focus of the ceasefire. Starvation as the means to commit genocide hit directly into the humanitarian paradigm; something the international community couldn’t allow. And while Western and Arab leaders swiftly voiced agreement with the US plan for Gaza, Palestinians are left with political ambiguity which is of premeditated omission.

The EU, which is seeking a more prominent role in the so-called transition proceed in Gaza after US President Donald Trump called the bloc “irrelevant”, is exploiting the ambiguity for its own influence. “It is important to obtain more clarity on essential elements currently not fully elaborated, notably which role the Palestinians will have in post-war Gaza,” a document by the European External Action Services partly reads. “The EU should be a member of the future Board of Peace oversight body in order to influence strategic choices.”

The strategy since the Oslo Accords has been to prevent the two-state paradigm from materialising. The two-state politics builds upon the 1947 Partition Plan, and it endorses early Zionist colonial expansion, the 1948 Nakba and the ongoing settlement expansion to date. Despite the international consensus on the two-state paradigm, its function has been to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. Indeed, the only Palestinian state world leaders are willing to recognise is a non-existent, symbolic one.

While the Oslo Accords are linked to the two-state paradigm, there is no official endorsement of it. Trump’s plan follows a similar trajectory, only this time it is supported by Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Point 19 of the plan states that while Gaza is redeveloped and the Palestinian Authority reforms, “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”

A credible pathway to Palestinian statehood as Trump’s plan states,  does not endorse statehood. It merely calls for Palestinians to remain perpetually suspended in the two-state paradigm, with no options for decolonisation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly asserted that no Palestinian state will be accepted, and Trump has not contradicted him. The EU, meanwhile, has maintained its stance – the discrepancy between endorsing the two-state paradigm and ensuring it never happens. Israel’s genocide in Gaza has certainly eliminated much of that burden now, particularly since world leaders are not discussing Trump’s plan in the aftermath of a genocide to which the doors have been left wide open.

Therefore, what kind of clarity is the EU seeking? The political leverage lies with Israel and its accomplices, not with the Palestinian people. It is clear enough that any Palestinian input in Gaza, regulated by an international community doing its utmost to protect Israeli colonialism, will not shape the political process for Palestinian autonomy any more than the PA’s fictitious state-building preceded a Palestinian state. Is the EU willing to oppose Israeli colonialism and genocide in Gaza and across colonised Palestine? That is the clarity the EU must provide.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251016-the-dangers-of-political-ambiguity/