The Enduring Narrative of 'Mixed Signals'
The article suggests that 'mixed signals' create a delicate balance, implying that clarity might destabilize. This interpretation consistently overlooks the historical role of such 'signals' in maintaining asymmetrical power structures. FIRST INSTANCE: The 'Fragile Peace' Delusion (1970s - Present) The concept of 'fragile peace' being preserved by ambiguous communication gained traction during the
Cold War. For example, during détente in the 1970s, both US and Soviet administrations framed their often contradictory rhetoric—public condemnations versus private negotiations—as necessary to prevent larger conflicts. This narrative ignored that underlying ideological and geopolitical competition continued unabated, merely shifting its form. The US, for instance, continued its covert operations
globally, from supporting coups in Latin America (e.g., Chile, 1973) to funneling aid to anti-communist insurgents, while simultaneously pursuing arms control treaties (SALT I, 1972). REPETITIONS: The Middle East 'Peace Process' (1990s - 2010s) The Oslo Accords (1993) were presented as ushering in a 'fragile peace' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, sustained by a complex interplay of signals.
Israeli governments, like that of Benjamin Netanyahu in the late 1990s and again in 2002, frequently employed rhetoric of 'security concerns' alongside limited, often stalled, negotiations. This was consistently framed internationally as 'mixed signals' required for managing a volatile situation. Concurrently, illegal settlement expansion continued relentlessly, accelerating after the Oslo process