Um, I am not sure how I feel about this. Why would Xi support a two-state solution? Isn’t it more justified to have a one-state solution and return all of the land to the Palestinians? Won’t a two-state solution eventually lead us back to another genocide? This feels off. I did not expect Xi to make such a statement.
They’re just going to follow America’s lead on this huh? I guess China wouldn’t be tied into the situation in a way they’d be able to realistically pursue a peace plan the way Xi could with Putin during the Ukraine war. Wild but I guess those carrier groups really do dissuade foreign intervention
it isn’t; regardless of its rhetoric, Amerika wants a one-state “solution” without Palestinians, whereas China wants some kind of peace
This is identical to the Soviet position. It is meant to be as inoffensive, pragmatic, and status-quo supporting as possible as to not cause conflict.
Palestine is not a national interest of China, and it’s leadership could care less about it, so why would they risk aggravating the situation for little to no gain?
Why are you assuming that the CPC leadership doesn’t care about Palestine? If they were to suddenly demand the dismantling of “Israel”, the risk of a third world war would likely increase significantly
Because China has laid their foreign policy positions bare and have stood by them for over a decade at this point. A core tenant of that policy is a primary focus on local security, and a strong non-interference policy.
Further, directly supporting Palestine offers no real benefit to China and its policy goals, and it would be needlessly poking a hornets nest for little to nothing in return.
not directly intervening or completely denouncing “Israel” doesn’t imply that they don’t care about Palestine
True, but that is irrelevant to the grand scheme of things. Whether or not Xi and the CPC leadership have different opinions, is neither important or even possible for us to know. All we can go off of is the policy position, and that policy position has been cold, calculating, and pragmatic. China will fulfill its own self interests first, and whether or not Xi finds it regrettable or wishes to support Palestine, Chinese leadership has little reason to care for the current conflict and the plight of Palestinians. They have bigger fish to fry, and this current stance is very much in line with the position they have taken for years on a myriad of conflicts.
yes, they have to prioritize their own safety; my point is that that claiming that they don’t care is likely untrue, and it plays into the stereotype of communist leaders as ruthless or uncaring
Of course, and I hope it didn’t come across as me saying that the CPC don’t care out of some cold ruthlessness, but more so in the sense that they “don’t care” because not only does the event not involve them, but also because they cannot preform any meaningful action without destabilizing their position.
that’s fair enough
There’s no pragmatic benefit to supporting Palestine, hence the current position, but ideologically the CPC has been pretty pro-palestine since at least the Mao-era. Also domestic opinion in China right now is definitely far more pro-palestine than the west.
Yes I support a 2 state solution: Syria controls Golan heights Everything else is Palestine
China’s foreign policy hasn’t really been the best. They mostly avoid doing anything super cool outside their country.
Aye man we can’t agree on everything; it is what it is. No matter how you twist it Israel’s goal is ethnic cleansing, idk how a two state solution would stop that, or even bring peace for that matter, cause the settlers would want revenge for the loss of their made up religious ethnostate and restart the entire process all over again.
Someone better give Palestine some S-400s or something.
The 1 state solution where everyone coexist in peace is not possible in the current material conditions.
A transitional 2 state solution is needed imho, not the solution proposed by the US where Palestine is an open air prison but one where they can have sovereignty over borders and such.
Only then and after demilitarization on Israel can a 1 state solution be materially possible.
It also depends on what “two state solution” actually means. Traditionally, Israel has made such solutions impossible. The “you go your way, we’ll go ours” has been off the table because Israel doesn’t want that, they want the entire land and the expulsion of Palestine entirely.
A two-state solution, where there’s a kind of federation between them might actually work. The federation would have to abide by international committees and violations by either state would be subject to some kind of punishment (be it trade deals or even military action in severe cases).
The first problem, though, is the weapons supply and military training from the West. If that were cut off, it would take maybe a year of bloody gorilla fighting, but the playing field would be relatively equal at that point and then it’d be anybody’s guess who’d win out. Getting the USA to slowly wean away support would mean negotiating partially on their terms.
In other words, Xi could just be giving the USA a peaceful “out” here, if they take it. The USA can save face and support a ramp down of the situation instead of escalation. I don’t see that happening near-term, but lots can change in the next few years and this play by China might just be the thing that allows a better situation to happen here.
I’m surprised people here are still surprised at China taking a “”“middle-ground”“” stance on geopolitical issues that don’t directly impact them.
A huge part of their foreign policy since the 90s has been a philosophy of “don’t stir the hornets nest” and even though that seems to be changing now that they’ve become an economic superpower, they stil don’t intervene too much where they don’t need to. Ignoring whether it’s moral or not, it’s rooted in pragmatism for their own survival first.
I’m still learning, and I believe new people that come here will likely ask similar repeated questions. We’re all at different stages. I appreciate everyone’s perspective from this post, and I believe we have had some really good discussions and points that has already helped me grow.
Fair enough, sometimes I forget about that. Being from the Global South myself we constantly have this debate because China really doesn’t do much to help revolutions against states they have deals with (as opposed to earlier China or USSR), so probably feels more obvious to me than it actually is.
Your question was fine, I was knee-jerky, don’t feel discouraged to ask more in the future.
Edit: Also, besides what others have said about China following UN decisions, them supporting a two-state solution is fundamentally different from Western countries which provide aid for Israel also backing that. The first can pass as ineffective, naïve or disinterested, but the second is downright hypocritical by pretending they have no agency on what their colony does.
It’s just another iteration of the Eternal September. Nothing too surprising imo
China’s position is understandable and unsurprising, yet still disappointing. In regards to their foreign policy, they are still very far away of being able to fill the shoes of the Soviet Union.
One of the Soviet Union’s problems was over extension though. They put a lot of energy into external affairs at the expense of internal ones, with mixed results. On the one hand we got Cuba, and on the other we have raging fascism in Ukraine and Poland, and the soviet union was killed and gifted by capitalists. China has not achieved the same things abroad, but has done well for its citizens so far.
I think no one expects China to arm the 2n International Brigades nor to have a hand in supporting every single communist party on Earth. But from the overextension that the USSR suffered (which I will remind you that at the time of its dissolution included a full on, 10 year-long war in Afghanistan) to the absolute neutrality that China displays there is a long way, with both of them staying at opposite extremes of the same axis.
We have to ask ourselves if it would be so extremely disastrous for China to simply condemn the act of imperialism and colonialism that is the existance of the state of Israel as it is today, and leave it there. It’s not like this statement will appease anyone, with Biden already calling Xi a dictator nonchalantly and with the same aggressive US military maneuvers as always still going on periodically in Taiwan. It wouldn’t even be that outlandish to simply retreat recognition of Israel as a state, which they wouldn’t be the first to do.
China’s pursue of neutrality and refusal to interact with the broader worldwide communist and/or anti-imperialist movement is exhausting. I’m not even talking about active statements of external policy even: the USSR’s “Progress Publishers” used to take every text on Marxism-Leninism they could get their hands on and export them translated to 50 languages, while in order to get a copy of “The Governance of China” in one of the few languages it exists in you could see people in back in r/GenZedong having to write a letter to their local Chinese embassy written in unicorn blood hoping that they would agree to hand them a copy of, at most, one of the three existing volumes.
That’s fair.
The USSR from the early 70s until its collapse basicaly held a pro-palestine 2 state solution position. WHat makes you think even if they survived they would have had a noticably better position than China’s
This is what makes me think so.
Perhaps the USSR wouldn’t have a noticeably better position than China nowadays. Perhaps the USSR would be a nordic-like social democracy too, since it’s been 30 years since it fell and at this time we can imagine anything if we engage in the waste of time that is alt-history.
But if you focus away from the Israel-Palestine conflict there is one thing that is true no matter how you look at it: by searching the “middle ground” in every single conflict in its pursue to maintain pragmatism and avoid the overextension that the USSR suffered, Chinese external policy has almost reached the point of toothlessness, and it’s getting pretty exhausting when the situation that is going on right now is a genocide and the IMCWP is already calling together for the cease of the occupation of Palestine. And while we don’t know what the USSR would have done (and it is useless to ponder about it), the truth is that Soviet external policy in general, despite its excesses and flaws, has to this day done more for communism and for the workers of the world than China ever aims to.
Damn near every communist party had held the UN '67 line for the purpose of holding an international legal standard that darn near the entire world agrees to.
It doesn’t solve the inherent contradiction of zionist colonization, nor halts the fascist zionist state from continuing its acts of genocidal aggression, but it gives breathing space for the Palestinian people to actually rebuild their homeland and regain a more equal footing to the fascists at their border.
I believe a two state solution can be a good “non-reformist reform” that puts Palestine in, hopefully, a better position. But only if everyone wants to continue going further. If a Palestinian state is recognized, how long will it be before this state is labeled a failed state and reoccupied with little to no pushback from the international community?
For a two state solution to be viable, there must be reperations for the Palestinian state to build its capacity and there must be a reckoning among the occupiers. Given the conditions the world is in, how likley is it that both of these things will play out in a healthy, coordinated way? Probably not likley at all. Most just want the reform for political reasons and will just stop there until the genocide gets bad enough to start finger wagging again, which is all they will be able to do because they already “tried everything.”
(|Palestine where the cat dies> + |Palestine where the cat is alive>)/sqrt(2)
If China called for a One state solution the media across the Empire would announce China’s desire to wipe the Jewish people off the Earth and the propaganda mill would go into overdrive to drum up even more military support for Israel and Taiwan in response. Also China is a member of The Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations. So, they’re going to mostly back the UN position on most issues.
That’s fair, I know China really tries to be careful.
China will suffer propaganda even for the positive things they do, like the de-radicalization of terrorists in Xinjiang. This is not the reason they advocate for a two-state solution, they do it for pragmatic reasons, and to avoid conflicts. It seems more logical than thinking the Chinese leadership will consider how the West would react before doing anything
Since Deng Xiaoping, China adopted a “not my business” foreign policy, perhaps except for the war with Vietnam, which was a disaster.
I think we’re saying the same things though. I didn’t mean to suggest that China is seeking Western approval or anything. Just that advocating a one state solution right now would be taken as a provocative position and likely escalate this conflict and others.
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative."
The only thing China needs to do for the US to gather up arms against it is simply to just exist. It is not what China does or stops doing that gathers a reaction from the US: it is the US’ wish to react against them in itself that causes it.
China (and therefore Xi) follow a policy of territorial integrity (borders should stay as they are [civil wars notwithstanding]), AFAIK Xi wants the 1968 borders to be restored which follows this policy
I appreciate your response. Restoring 1968 borders still doesn’t feel just, in my opinion, considering this gives Israel the majority of the land. At least 50/50 would be more acceptable to me, or even swap lands so that Palestine has the majority as they deserve, but I don’t know if that would logistically make sense.
Hamas actually agreed to the 1968 agreement.In fact, this is the only promising solution at present.
As frustratingly middle of the road as this is, you’ll have to get used to language like this coming from China. They are not necessarily ones to rock the boat. It’s a careful strategy on their part. Some would say they’re playing the long game.
At the very least, they are asking for sovereignty to be restored to the Palestinians, even if its not a total reversal of the colonial agenda. They also at least understand the source of the conflict being the settler state of Israel. No, Israel doesn’t have a right to exist, but if we’re to take that idea to the logical conclusion, neither does the US. And yet, calling for the destruction of America, as delightful as the notion is, is not necessarily something which is in the best interests of the CPC.
Agree.
And When the Palestinians and their allies excise the cancerous entity and create a Palestinian state from the River to the sea, the PRC will recognize it. That’s what matters to me.
I appreciate your response. I had feeling there was some long-term strategy at play in Xi’s response. I also was going to compare this to America, but what you said makes sense. I just hope for the best for the Palestinians, whichever solution that can stop the needless killing as much as possible, and whichever solution that in the end gives justice to the Palestinians and their stolen lands, even if it is not immediate (the sooner the better). The same can be said for Native Americans and other indigenous populations.
Exactly. China is going to look out for China. Just because a state is a socialist state does not mean it is a benevolent state. I feel like there are a some communists out there who have idealist expectations of China and earnestly put stock into the meme that the PRC will “liberate the West.”
A one-state solution for Palestine will still result in conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, the current Israeli colonialism of Palestine will just turn into Israeli separatism from a single Palestinian state.
Are you implying that Israelis cannot every make peace with Palestinians? That they are fundamentally incapable of such a thing?
I’m beating around the bush here, but you’re getting very close to a lot of very antisemitic arguments for Israel’s existence.
I think that as long as the American imperialists are still supporting Israel, they won’t “make peace” with Palestine. A two-state solution is a compromise in the event that the US stops giving support.
Korea is an existing example of a two-state solution waiting to be resolved by the north side, they also separated about the same time as Palestine. I suspect that after implementing a two-state solution, Palestine will get the same treatment as Korea or Cuba by the US with sanctions or embargoes.
Ah yeah, I agree with that totally. I thought it was just a miscommunication. Probably should’ve been less unpleasant in my response, thanks for clarifying!
I would argue it is nigh incapable of Israel (or its state apparatus and the majority of its population) to make peace with Palestinians. Not because they are Jewish, but because it is the nature of settler-colonialism.
One could point at the Anglo settler-states claiming they show there’s a step forward- but what justice has been done there, for the native peoples? I live in Canada, I was raised mostly rural, many of my childhood friends, classmates were indigenous and they all were being raised by white, Christian families. If you think there’s any justice- hell, any equality here, I got a bridge to sell you…
There is only one answer to settler-colonialism- indigenism. It doesn’t require the driving out of all settlers (though I won’t claim I’d shed many tears about it if it did). It’s the answer in Bolivia, it’s the answer in South Africa, it’s the answer in Algeria, etc… while NZ is far from perfect to my understanding, some degree of it is in employ there, as well.
There is no place for a white, Jewish ethnostate imposing itself in the rightful land of the Palestinians, and the settler mentality is aware of that- so long as the Palestinian people exist in any meaningful sense, peace with the ethnostate is a pipe dream. There’s a place, perhaps, for a state that comprises both the indigenous Palestinians and the settler Jewish peoples- but Israel? I don’t believe that, just as there was no place for the Pied-Noirs to have their state, there was no place for the Rhodesians to have their state, there was no place for the Apartheid government and Boer minority rule to continue.
China toeing the UN line- the pragmatic approach- is sensible. I’d toe it too, if I were in any position to do so. But inevitably, IMO- so long as the apartheid-state exists, so long as the state built upon the ideals of white supremacy and the destruction or suppression of the indigenous peoples, and the sole benefit of the settler-colonials exists, the Israelis will show their true colors, time and time again. Not because they’re Jewish, but because they’re colonials clinging to a colonial ideal, who have not faced justice or equality, and this is what colonials do. Eventually the Anglo settler states no doubt (IMO) will have to face their own reckoning, it may not be indigenism in the truest sense (as the native peoples aren’t demographically relevant enough) but it will be a reckoning of the white, imperialist state, especially as the white demographics continue to decline.
In the ‘international community’ (i.e., among certain world leaders), this still seems to be the consensus. The idea is motivated not so much by a thought of what is most just, but what is (supposedly) most possible to get both parties to agree to. And China is here trying simply to echo that consensus.
I think at this point, though, it’s hard not to see that this ‘consensus’ is a zombie, and the territorial and political viability of such a solution is visibly, obviously dead. That does make renewed endorsements of a 'two-state solution’ untimely and even uncanny things to see, imo.
I agree that a single state covering the whole of mandatory Palestine seems more just. Palestinians deserve the right of return, full freedom of movement, and all national and civic rights, across the entire territory. I don’t see how a multi-state solution facilitates that.
I also don’t really know how to ‘help’ as an outsider, with a two-state solution. For a one-state solution, we have a model in the original anti-apartheid movement and an existing international movement in BDS. What would helping Palestinians ‘win’ a partitioned state even look like at this point?
