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.
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.”
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
“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.
I know why he’s doing it, but it doesn’t make the play-acted middle-of-the-road centrism any less infuriating because for fuck’s sake he sounds just like the settlers saying shit like this. If the unthinkable happened and we finally got a war against our oppressors in the West, and somebody started talking about ‘two-state solution’, my blood would boil! The crackerverse would holler otherwise, but the crackerverse would holler anyway. They’re stuck pigs, it’s all they know how to do.
The crackerverse would holler otherwise, but the crackerverse would holler anyway.
This is also true in Israel. Due to the current state of the West Bank, a two-state solution would essentially require partition all over again, an opening of a new instance of the same kind of wound as 1948 constituted.
When the Israeli Jewish settlements were removed from Gaza, there was a huge uproar inside Israel. If the Israeli government did that in the West Bank today, it’d be a huge reversal and they’d have to contend with a very vocal, very armed, right-wing religious extremist faction going absolutely nuts over it.
Alternatively, if the Israeli government proposed to do land swaps instead (which they’d probably want to do since the West Bank is of special religious and historical significance to Jews, much more so than most of the territory the state of Israel now claims for itself), that could mean further mass displacement for Palestinians living in the West Bank, plus the same kind of domestic problem for the Israeli government in whatever territory they would give over to the Palestinians in exchange.
There’s no way to do a two-state solution that doesn’t require mass displacement by force, possibly for both sides. I don’t understand how that inflames things any less than decolonializatlon/reconstruction/reparations to transition to a single multinational state or a confederation with free movement across the whole territory or something like that.
Israeli Jews certainly cry out loudly today if anyone talks about a one state solution, but there would also be a massive outcry from them if steps were taken to actually realize a two-state solution, too.
(If, when they have a hand strong enough to actually meaningfully negotiate with Israel and hold them to account, Palestinians (including the Palestinian diaspora), should choose a ‘two-state solution’, you won’t find me opposing that. But I really struggle to see how that’s possible given current realities on the ground.)
If one of the poles in our multipolar world pushes for a one state solution, Israel will go THERMONUCLEAR.
Also a one-state solution in the current conditions is going to mean whichever state remains will preside over rubble, and much of West Asia will also be rubble. And that region is a key part in the Belt and Road, which is a driving force in liberating Africa as well as bringing prosperity to the West Asia region.
The two-state option is a win for Palestine in the long run, and China acts with the long run in mind. If the current crisis ends with Gaza and the West Bank not blockaded, occupied nor controlled by Israel, it will become a competition of economies instead of a war of violence. Israel will have the declining fascist-impoverished Western World in its corner, while Palestine will have BRICS+ (or more likely BRCS+) and the Belt And Road in its corner.
All we need is a status quo where Israel can’t bomb, bully and murder Palestinians on a whim anymore, and Palestine would leave Israel in the dust in terms of prosperity.
Also, some of the comments in this thread are more than a little irritating. And extremely myopic.
What do people want China to do? Every word that comes out of the Chinese MFA has to be considered in the context of the wider struggle. We’re all winning the wider struggle, in large part because they know what they’re fucking doing in Beijing - which includes actual material analysis on the consequences of their words and actions and implementing practical, effective policy instead of angry idealist ranting.
Paraphrasing, but: “I understand the material reasons why China says what it says, but I’m still disappointed that they didn’t do the worst possible thing they could do instead because it superficially adheres to our principles” is infuriating to read. If you typed something like that, please think about why you typed it.
Yes I support a 2 state solution: Syria controls Golan heights Everything else is Palestine
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.
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.
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?
I did not expect Xi to make such a statement.
Well… I don’t know what you expect of the Chinese leadership, but their foreign policy is very pragmatic, and sometimes, like in these cases, very conservative and not progressive at all. They want to avoid conflicts at all costs, even if it means sacrificing a more revolutionary, socialist stance on international issues.
And although we may disagree with the position of the Chinese leadership on this issue, a socialist country in our time has no other option except having a relationship with dozens of capitalist countries all over the world. To have a more firm political stance on an international issue could send a bad message for the majority of capitalist countries which want to continue pursuing their short-sighted interests which causes political issues (aka the vast majority of capitalist countries).
If China interferes politically and diplomatically on an international issue, capitalist countries could wonder if they would get the same treatment under their own political issues, thus hurting international business, which is the blood of the Chinese economy.
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.
https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/3084754
I made this post so I could get some feedback and a better understanding of the situation. A lot of people here gave some very thoughtful input.
Before I made this post, I suspected the Xi’s response was pragmatic, but I wasn’t quite sure how and if it was a good decision.
Learning Marxist-Leninism is quite the rabbit hole, and there’s so much I am trying to wrap my head around. Please forgive me if I make poor assumptions or expectations; I am only wanting to learn and get input from others here.
I believe most people here have made valid points, even those that are contradictory to others. My hope is for the most pragmatic solution for the Palestinian people that leads to the least deaths and the most justice, but there’s also the major issue of bloodthirsty Zionists regardless if a one or two state solution is achieved (from my understanding of everyone’s feedback), and there’s many factors that would need to be considered to make either solution actually succeed long term. The need for the US to stop funding Israel is a major one, for example.
I also understand that China being a socialist country in a capitalist dominated world means they have to be careful for their own survival as well as the survival of other countries they are trying to help, which I respect.
Please forgive me if I make poor assumptions or expectations; I am only wanting to learn and get input from others here.
Don’t worry about it, there’s no fault, we’re not obliged to know everything. Not knowing is the natural human state as soon as we’re born, and we’ll carry this ignorance on virtually everything until the end of our lives. By definition, our ignorance is limitless, because we can’t know everything…
Anyways, I appreciate questions like these too, they are very important indeed so newcomers, lurkers and those interested in Marxism-Leninism can get to know a bit about our thinking on these subjects. Plus, it’s an exercise for Marxist-Leninists too, so we can articulate our thoughts. So yeah, great post, and you articulated your questions in a very polite manner, there’s no complaint to be made.
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 (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.
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.
Vice Presidant and Foreign Minister also met with the Arab-Islamic Summit Foreign Ministers in Beijing yesterday.
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.
A one-state solution for Palestine will still result in conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, the current Israeli colonialism in 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.