EU prioritises two-state conspiracy within alleged criticism of settlement construction

The EU is about to embark upon a continuation of contradictions that criticise settlement expansion while reiterating its support for the two-state conspiracy. The recent appropriation of land and further settlement construction prompted a series of alleged concerns which, according to Haaretz, EU Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg-Andersen is expected to relay to Israel’s Foreign Ministry Director Nissim Ben Sheetrit and national security advisor Yossi Cohen.

The internal EU document made available by Haaretz attempts to convey “concern” over the obvious fact that settlement expansion diminish the “prospects of a viable Palestinian state” – a clichéd phrase that is becoming increasingly common in diplomatic rhetoric paving the way for the obliteration of Palestine. Along with references to International Humanitarian Law, the document proposes nothing other than an insistence upon Palestinian acquiescence to the fallacy of two states on colonised territory, as evidenced in the first paragraph of the document calling for the impossibility of “security and mutual recognition”.

Despite the attempt to portray concern, the document fails to counter the insistence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as quoted in the Times of Israel. “We have built in Jerusalem, we are building in Jerusalem and we will continue to build in Jerusalem.” Claiming that European and international criticism of settlements amounts to incitements against Israel, Netanyahu attempted to invoke an alleged detachment from Israel’s reality, stating that criticism fosters “false statements among the Palestinians”.

The concept of false statements is a characteristic of the dynamic exhibited by Israel and the EU with regard to settlement expansion, the two-state insistence and the obliteration of settler-colonialism from the hegemonic narrative. As on other occasions, the EU document encourages Israel, as a coloniser, to seek oppressive alternatives in return for relinquishing current proposals, for the sole purpose of promoting an illusion of dialogue to satisfy international complacency. Rather than addressing Palestinian needs the document focuses upon EU and Israel, creating the usual dynamic of expectation and subjugation tied with misplaced legitimacy bestowed upon the settler-colonial state.

Addressing settlement expansion as a decades-long project is avoided as usual, in an attempt to distort the historical process leading to fragmentation of territory. The emphasis lies solely in measures that would allow diplomatic discourse to retain the two-state focus – an internationally-endorsed concept that Palestinian leaders have incorporated in place of liberation. Hence, statements such as the EU’s insistence upon promoting itself as a “key investor in Palestinian capacity and state-building, as appreciated by Israel itself” will infiltrate official Palestinian discourse to the detriment of Palestinians, ensuring the recurring trend of opposing settlement expansion while reiterating the importance of adhering to the two-state usurpation plan.

The document is evidence of persistent interruption in the Palestinian narrative. Settlement expansion has been routinely criticised internationally, yet the criticism is articulated by Israel’s allies, rendering the cessation of colonisation impossible. In conclusion, the document calls for “a legitimate expectation to have a constructive dialogue with the Israeli authorities” – two contradictions that exhibit the hypocrisy when dealing with the ambitions of the settler-colonial state as opposed to validating legitimate Palestinian demands.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.