Remote View

2y ago

Israel-Gaza war: only a two-state solution can bring real peace, China president says in first public speech on conflict

www.scmp.com Only two-state solution can bring real peace to Israel and Palestinians: China

Xi Jinping tells Brics summit attacks on civilians must end and the hostages must be released.

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.

103 comments

Not surprising. China's foreign policy has basically bren:
No intervention in other country's affairs from China.
No intervention in China's affairs from other countries.
Agree with whatever the UN ruled on. (They have veto power so they are never at risk, also see point 2.) Since the two state thing is an UN resolution. China supports it.

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."

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.)

Ummm. Hamas supports a 2 state solution along 1967 borders. This is not a "centrist" compromise by Xi and the CPC. This is listening to what the wronged party is asking for and supporting them.
- It's worth noting that it's the only solution because the international community isn't going to challenge the US and its colony. The so-believed lack of options is a product of neocolonial relations that are baked into the fabric of the society of states. China has chained itself to this structure for its own purposes and thus their position on Palestine is not holistic or robust beyond those purposes. The two state solution is not a sovereign solution, it is not a just solution, regardless of how "realistic" it is or who is supporting it. Borders are not the problem. The occupiers are.
  
  Israel has nuclear weapons the UN couldn't challenge them that much if they wanted to
  
  Due to the expansionist racial supremacist nature of zionism the 2 state solution can only come after zionism is defeated.
  In that world there is still an israeli population that have a different culture and governmental structure in mind than Palestine does. Are they to be punished for the sins of zionism? Do we support their being ethnically cleansed? Do those people not have a right to self determination? Is the grand plan to have the Israelis subjected to genocide?
  A single state solution would breath new life into zionism in the form of an insurgency. It would destroy the Palestinian state.
  You can't "undo" settler colonialism. All you can do is listen to the displaced and support what they think is the best path forward.
  Maybe 30-50 years of peace after the 2 state solution is implemented things can change to make a single state, if that is what both nations want but you cant just go from israeli zionist state to a single state solution over night. Demanding absolutist "justice" for that undermines the peace process. As a Marxist Leninist we understand that there are stages between where we are and where we would like to be. This is where we differ from Anachists, they demand an absolutist destruction of the state where as Marxist Leninists understand that "the state withers away" after a time of transition under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
- Hamas supports a temporary truce along the 1967 borders

Even Hamas wants a two state solution along 1967 borders. Nelson Mandela campaigned for a two state solution along 1967 borders as well when he visited Gaza in 1999. A two state solution where Israel withdraws from all occupied territories/Arab land in the West Bank and goes back to 67 borders has been the position of Palestinian resistance for decades.
- Yeah but the West Bank is the two state solution; the problem with a two state solution is that Israel absolutely won't respect it and will just go ahead and build illegal settlements UNLESS a powerful third force militarily guards the rights of the second state, and good luck getting our government to go along with that.
  Also I found out from watching Hasan's videos that the illegal settlers are about 700,000 people, and they're armed as well; you are NOT getting those people to leave peacefully. Apparently those settlers are also the genuine hard-coded fascists; the blood and soil types, replete with mythical explanations and openly saying the Arabs should be treated as second class citizens and be grateful for it (which makes me concerned about what they say off camera), believing that strength is justice and apparently being the sort to hate holocaust survivors because they see them as weak.
  There's no realistic way to have a two state solution without a military force ensuring peace and no breaches of territory or rights, and even a one state solution does not guarantee equal rights to all, merely gaining the second class citizenship afforded to Arab Israelis who will probably see a further reduction in rights to compensate.
  Actually now that I've typed all this up, I don't see a peaceful resolution to this. The Israeli government needs to be replaced with a better one, it's the central problem to any solution. Also if their democracy works the way I understand it, it sucks anyway; apparently you don't vote for the prime minister or the president, you vote for the Knesset and they elect a president and prime minister.
  
  Any settler that hasn't left Palestine of their own accord yet is absolutely committed to settlerism.
  
  Pretty much the point I've reached.
  Two states only "works" with the dissolution of Israel such as it is and the creation of an entirely new second state alongside Palestine. At which point, why not just have one state?
- Most of the world thinks that the two-state solution is the best compromise for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, probably not the best solution, but if they find a way to do it right.
  Besides, it would be very interesting to see Israel crumble with the decline of the US, and Palestine prosper with BRICS+ and the Road and Belt initiative.

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.

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.

The only correct two-state solution is giving west germany to israel
- I propose giving the Baltic States to Israel instead. Modern Germany is at least mostly repentent about its Nazi past, but the Baltic States had enthusiastic pogroms before the Nazis rolled in in WW2 and have built their post-Soviet identities on defending their involvement with the SS.
  If anyone deserves to lose land, it's the Baltics.
  
  So here's a crazy idea:
  Why not give them a piece of land between the Russian held territories of Ukraine, and the rest of Ukraine?
  As I understand it, the settlers who went about committing the Nakba apparently believed they were superior because they were European and were colonizing whom they believed to be savage natives (apparently they also had really offensive views about Arab Jews); Ukrainians also view themselves as having inherited Western European culture and yet revere Nazism openly (whereas the rest of Western Europe has abandoned the branding without abandoning the mentality); What I'm thinking here is put Israelis face to face with the Western European culture they revere so much and meanwhile, force the Nazi-sympathetic among the Ukrainians to live side by side with Jewish people and force them to give up their antisemitis- okay that's not going to work.
  Yeah give them land in the Baltic states. Or heck give them Florida (I certainly won't miss it).
  
  X to doubt
- @mayocider @Imnecomrade
  That or West Ukraine. Or Hauts de France. Or the entirety of Belgium.
- I would rather not have those guys at my border.
  
  And that's the original reason they colonized Palestine

Yes I support a 2 state solution: Syria controls Golan heights Everything else is Palestine

If the Ukraine conflict has taught us anything, it should be that holding on to unrealistic maximalist aims over the possibility of a negotiated settlement is very dangerous and possibly self-destructive.
Since most factions in Palestinian government are at least nominally on board with a Two-State Solution of some kind, I don't think it's my place to call for more maximalist goals than the Palestinian people are willing to accept. In other words, I don't want to be the left version of those blood thirsty NAFO dogs egging Ukraine on from the sidelines.
- If a two state solution is agreed upon (and everyone can find a peaceful way to move the 700,000 psychotic and armed illegal settlers), Palestine will 100% need a military force to safeguard their state and their rights. Can you imagine stationing Chinese troops in Gaza or the West Bank and having to be the one to explain to them why they can't have water or electricity 24 hours a day? Most people don't say a thing about that because they've no idea this nonsense is happening, but good luck trying to stop the military from one of the strongest nations on earth from building water and power plants.

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

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.
- 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.
- 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."

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?

Yeah. 2 states. Palestine and Palestine 2.
- Two Palestines may be a tad exessive, but if Xi insists...
- Palestine and Palestiner.
- Palestine 2: Episode One
  Palestine 2: Episode Two

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.

A fascinating case study in how a lot of the people yelling at succdems in the west for proposing a two state solution as liberalism will turn themselves into pretzels to justify that it is actually great when it is Xi.
The only way to end hostilities is to dismantle the zionist entity. If they were willing to accept a two state solution that would have been a reality decades ago, but further settlements are necessary for their ideology.
- Even in an ideal world where a two state solution is reasonably possible, it's inherently unfair to Palestinians. Full stop, they should have complete access to their land, confining them to the smallest, shittiest parts of it while Israel gets the arable, resource dense parts and still receives billions from foreign donors for their little ethnostate start up is not liberation. Even if Palestine got sovereignty and no more settlements were built, until Palestinians get reparations and stolen land back and the Blood and Soil law of return shit is abolished, there is no peace
- there's a big difference between a permanent two-state solution (practically impossible in the long run, and unreasonable to the Palestinians) and a temporary two-state solution to stop the current genocide and let the Palestinians recover (what Hamas and others want)
  
  But this is what Xi is proposing as the permanent lasting solution.
  “I have emphasised on many occasions that the only viable way to break the cycle of Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in a two-state solution, in the restoration of the legitimate national rights of Palestine, and in the establishment of an independent state of Palestine,” Xi said.
  I'd say the Oslo accords were the last dividing point where anything looking like a two state solution without essentially dismantling Israel was realistic. But they assassinated the PM who was cooperating in the effort and the hard line Zionists have been in charge since.
  Talking about a temporary two state solution is the same as going back to the pre October 7th status quo. Israel isn't going to end their current course unless forced to by outside forces.

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.

China's foreign policy hasn't really been the best. They mostly avoid doing anything super cool outside their country.

cringe, but expected, considering how cringe chinas foreign policy under xi can be
Death to America

That's exactly what I expected him to say It's entirely consistent with Chinese foreign policy for this to be their conclusion.
Israel are never going to agree to just pack the whole thing up and leave and no one can make them. I therefore agree a two state solution with defined borders is the only thing I can realistically see ending the violence
- Not without Palestine having an effective military, what exactly is going to stop Israel from continuing it's ethnic cleansing? What's stopping the US from sanctioning the new Palestinian state like they do the DPRK?
- no one can make them.
  A collaborative effort by, like, 3 or 4 people in the US could probably do it. But they're the people with the least interest in doing such a thing
  
  But they’re the people with the least interest in doing such a thing.
  Ironically they're the ones sheltering israel in middle east.
  
  they could make them stop continuing to genocide the palestinians. I don't think America could make them give back all the stuff

Palestine, yes. But what about second Palestine?

Why are people still surprised by this position? Israel and China have significant trade deals (especially in tech)

Two Palestinian states might be a little too much, but sure?

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-welcomes-arab-muslim-foreign-ministers-talks-ending-105025845
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.

I think Israel can keep Tel Aviv sure why not

2 Pal 2 Estine: Levant Drift

didn’t china send some military aid to israel?
- I saw something like that on Twitter but it was from a suspicious account with no official (i.e government or media) standing. Just a pic of boxes at an airport that were purportedly full of body armor. Could have been literally anything.
  
  yeah i saw something similar you might be onto something

(|Palestine where the cat dies> + |Palestine where the cat is alive>)/sqrt(2)

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

103 comments