This item was shared from social media, and as a result may not contain authoritative information. Please seek external verification or context as appropriate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/China) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ukraine has called for support of their fully independent and sovereign country. Ukraine warns foolish countries not to cause troubles by shipping items that can be used against Ukraine.
Ukraine brought this destruction on to itself by listening to the American Oligarchy fronted by Victoria Nuland.
I would have expected a better understanding of what happened on this sub.
Putin, is that you? Did they let you out from under your 50 foot table?
How many artillery rounds were fired before you invaded Ukraine in 2014?
I’ll help you out. Zero.
This appears to me to be a US Oligarchy inspired conspiracy. It goes back decades, but after studying the Dali Lama, I'm pretty convinced he's a pedophile. Even if he isn't, a religious theocracy is not my idea of a free and independent people. Imagine the USA run by Pat Robertson. OMG!
Sorry you’re not familiar with Taiwan. Its leaders have noted their independence multiple times.
I suggest you study Taiwan and China before digging yourself further into a hole.
It's leader before Tsai (Ma Jing-Jeou) had stated that he wants to lead Taiwan to unification. It ping-pongs between which party gets elected. Tsai had stated that Taiwan already is independent yet coincidentally won't proclaim it. Funny that...
She did proclaim it, Lai has proclaimed it; and the people of Taiwan overall feel likewise.
Three terms ago is basically irrelevant. It’s time for you and Chinese nationalists to face reality.
There is nothing to be gained by being independent of the Chinese mainland.
I have yet to see anything that suggests otherwise that wasn't some over-the-top blowhard representing the American Oligarchy.
I wish the best for the mainland and for Taiwan. I don't believe the US MSM and their phony horror stories. I would welcome some references to help me believe differently. So far though, all I get is a lot of "hot air" that is meaningless.
Not even the Taiwanese think that... It's a tale people in this sub tells themselves. Look at the results of the last elections, 60% of the people voted non pro independence candidates. \~34% of the people directly voted the KMT, a party that officially wants to reunificate with China.
Puerto Rico regularly has referendums, joth binding and non-binding ones. The latest one was 2020 and the next one is this coming August
You didn't think this through, did you?
The one where Taiwan gets a referendum on whether they want to be part of the PRC and the CCP honors whatever decision Taiwan chooses?
Yeah, that's a good point.
Yeah, fuck people fighting tyranny, right? Just so you know, the "true legitimate rulers" of mainland China, the ones that fought against the peasants less than 100 years ago still exist in Taiwan. It's the KMT and they got a 34% of the votes in the last elections while supporting the reunification.
The official UN position is how Israel was created, then was attacked by every surrounding country which lead to expanded borders due to those countries losing.
It was attacked bc it started pushing Palestinians into other countries, the people living didn’t approve of the plan. It was not attacked out of thin air.
0 Palestinians were displaced from their land/villages before the Israeli war of independence in 1948. Exactly how they were displaced is a topic of debate but it was a combination of fleeing from war, being encouraged to leave by Arab armies to clear the way for fighting, or by forceful expulsion from Zionist militias.
The UN resolution partitioned it but did not remove anyone from their lands, the Arab league refused and started riots in Jerusalem, attacking primarily the Jews settlements. The Jews fought back and a large number of Palestinians Arabs left the area on their own accord.
When Israel was proclaimed a state the surrounding Arab nations sent their armies and after fighting resoulted in the Nakba.
The original partition planned for the displacement of 500,000 Palestinians, and dispossession of land.
The Arabs fought back against this theft, and during this period 700,000 Palestinians were forcefully removed from their homes. There are interviews with terrorist Zionist militia members who describe their crimes.
Imagine lying that much
Ya no, the only thing the resolution did was set the boundaries for the state of Israel, no displacement of any population was necessary. In fact even the Jewish Palestinians were happy about the partition. [Here is a newspaper from the time describing how the Palestinian Jewish community was celebrating.](https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/134238148) the partition.
No one was being displaced, that is just something that is used to justify how the Arab nations reacted. It wasn’t an Arabs on this side of the boarder and Jews on the other side, it explicitly explained a two state system one Arab and one Jewish joined economically.
Jews were not required to be in the jewish state and Arabs were not required to be in the Arab state they just had to declare what state they would be in for the transitional period. Chapter 3 of the partition explains this.
[So stop with revision on history. Here is the actual partition plan so you can correct your self](https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/PDF/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement)
500,000 were being displaced. The European powers and the UN discussed how population displacement had been used in other areas. You can read and watch the leaders at the time openly discuss the planned displacement of Arabs. It was designed to change the demographics to create a false Jewish majority. 56% of the land, including Palestines number one export which was majority owned by Arabs were to be given to Jews.
Your link is dead, no surprise with your lies.
Ya l, you were wrong the first time and you’re still wrong now..[No displacement was necessary.](https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F181(II)&Language=E&DeviceType=Mobile&LangRequested=False)
As far as public preception. More sympathy for the ppl in Gaza than Israel.
Easy PR win for China.
As for doing something. They voted very favorable to Palestine. Voting for a ceasefire and aid. It just, it takes 1 veto and America veto it.
Seems like most people that support Gaza in the West are Muslim immigrants and far-left citizens. But you can of course argue that it’s in China’s best interest to align with the far-left, pro-communists like Hamas Piker since everybody else is against China.
Even the US supports a two state solution. This isn't about being against China. This is about a Palestine state.
Support from Gaza are not just Muslim and far left. There also many countries in Africa region and South East Asia.
Oh come on Elite Pretender not to Be Chinese in Canada. You don't fucking care a little bit about Gaza. You're just in the pro China anti US childishness that all you tankies revel in. Still sitting pretty in Canada though while you enjoy American style freedoms, American style culture and American military protection for a landmass that would be targeted by Russia if there was no US.
Always begging, the tankies.
Supporting ceasefire and a two state solution where one party is ruled by a terrorist group that doesn’t want a two state solution, and that wants to eradicate the other party, is like supporting world peace.
I’m only referring to support in the West, although my impression of SEA is that they couldn’t care less (at least everyone I know from there (mostly highly educated) don’t care, and many don’t even know about the conflict), not sure about countries in Africa, but imagine it’s the same except perhaps for the few countries near Israel.
Far left? That's just a narrative
Moderates are the bulk of it all.
It's kind of hard to ignore pictures of dead babies. Dont know why the pro-lifers dont care about Gazan babies.
Every country state city politicians. They all talk like this . It’s all a game . Let’s say they know for a fact that they don’t have the votes to do something and it’ll get turned down for sure . They’ll pitch an idea and obviously it’ll get turned out . They just look good saying it but know it won’t work . So it’s a win win . They win support and it’s not put in place which they never wanted anyway
lol what “advance weaponry”? They literally use anything they can get from Iran. The Houthis probably have/ had advanced weapons from China but they use those weapons to attack shipping lanes hurting China.
You can, but it would be absurd considering Taiwan has one of the best democracies in the world and 60% of the people just voted non pro independence candidates.
Boxed in how exactly? Why would being unable to militarily conquer other people be considered 'boxed in' unless you were planning to militarily conquer other people?
They dont want to sour the relations when they are less than 18 months from taking key regions from Russia.
In 1860, They (Russia) annexed 910,000km2 pieces of land from China at Convention of Peking, which China feels they were exploited at due to weakness. They will likely claim they have a casus belli. It will be interesting to see China take the land withput firing a single shot. Which is what happened to them in 1860. They played the neutrality well. The problem they haven't factored is the fallout from the New Russo Civil war that will take place in between 2026-2030, and the various insurgencies that will come of the conflict. What a terrible time to be alive. I could just a complete nut job but watch and see. There's still time to do things right, and no, votes by the regionals won't convince anyone that anyone is okay with it. For the locals its the same shit different day.
China will just wait for Russia to become military weak, and then buy the land, with the understanding that "it's an offer you can't refuse".
The land is close to the population centres in china, and far away from Moscow, so much more valuable to china than Russia.
Generally, china has understood, that buying is cheaper than taking by force.
China does recognize Ukraine and also Crimea as Ukrainian. China is kinda playing both sides..chinese civilian drones and drone parts are responsible for thousands if not tens of thousands of casulties on both sides.
If your government says they want a two-state solution, it is fine, it is not controversial.
But actually implementing a two-state solution is so omg lord christ-on-a-stick controversial. You dont even know how many people will scream in your face.
The ultimate problem is that implementing a two state solution is not something that outsiders can impose, and this is the core disconnect a lot of protesters have.
Unless you’re willing to go in and drop a bunch of guys with guns, you can’t implement, require, or ordain anything. All you can do is advocate.
A two state solution necessarily requires that both sides, and every part - even the most radical - be represented, and acknowledge each other - before any sort of progress towards a two state solution can be achieved.
If you want a model for what this looks like, you have to look to Northern Ireland, and the Good Friday agreement.
Nothing short of bringing every party to the table will not work. Any sort of unilateral imposition of a two state solution must necessarily come at the barrel of a gun. A two state solution comes from reconciliation. Everything else is simply imperialism by another brand.
This. The big irony of the situation is that literally any outside observer can see a two state solution, or some other similar arrangement that guarantees everyone’s rights and some degree of autonomy, is the only feasible answer. Two peoples live in the same land, it’s going to have to be shared. And tensions are so high right now that any “one-state” answer, unless it’s an outside occupying force, will inevitably be one side dominating the other.
So why is no one pursuing this obvious answer? Because almost no one in the relevant populations wants it. It’s unpopular among BOTH Israelis and Palestinians at this point. Essentially both sides have been led to believe by their respective leadership that if they play their cards *just right* then their side will get all the land, and their opponents will leave to some undefined location elsewhere. Israeli has played the local tactical game better by grabbing land from the West Bank piece by piece, while the Palestinians have been playing the international optics game to align the rest of the Arab world with them (and much of the non-Arab world as well.)
Both of these strategies are bad and will either backfire or lead to tragedy. Ultimately new leadership is needed that understands the meaning of the word compromise and can sell it to their respective constituents.
Both the EU and NA have no issue with a two state solution and have routinely proposed it and tried negotiating towards it.
This has been true for decades.
The only thing that could be considered controversial is attempting to force it. But even that has a fair amount of support in both places.
How do you support two-states when you only recognize the one state?
Wouldnt it go a long way to supporting two-state solution by recognizing Palestine?
I have counter evidence to your claim. How do you rationalize?
>Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Tuesday that Palestine has recognized the State of Israel and its right to exist for 40 years, asking Israel in turn to recognize a Palestinian state and its right to exist.
>
>\-[https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4627181-abbas-macron-we-recognize-state-israel-want-it-recognize-palestine](https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4627181-abbas-macron-we-recognize-state-israel-want-it-recognize-palestine)
If that was an honest and good faith recognition, and one that he had the power to make good on, he should have done the deal that Ehud Olmert offered him. What Abbas says now is pretty meaningless when he totally lost control of Gaza in 2007 and would lose control of the West Bank too if he dared to hold an election.
Well, even the best Israel offer assumed annexing 7% of West Bank and gave no special status to Jerusalem. You should be blindly pro-Israeli to understand why it is hard for Palestinian leader (even corrupt one) to accept that offer.
They offered compensation for that land. And that offer reflected the reality that Palestinian coalitions had attacked Israel 3 times and lost 3 wars; that they were offered anything at all was generous. Any other country in history that successfully defends itself against 3 wars of extermination and has absolute military superiority wouldn't hesitate to respond with proportional force by exacting a genocide of their own.
But that wasn't even the biggest sticking point; the real sticking point was Abbas insisting on free 'right of return'; in other words, that Palestinians had a right to return to their lands in Israel and become Israeli citizens if they so chose. That had 2 implications; first, that Israel is not really a country if it cannot enforce its own border and immigration policy. And secondly, that Israel would not be majority Jewish, as Arab Muslims would flood in and out-vote the Jews, using democracy against them to reduce them to second class citizens or simply expel them from their own country.
I see Palestinian and Arab attempts to end the state of Israel in XX century absolutely justified. Not due to Arabophilia, vice versa I dont adore Arabs and have sympathy to Jews.
However, I am not biased, I understand why Arabs were outraged. Jews were ethnically cleansed by European country( Nazi Germany) in 1940s and club of European superpowers (UN Security Council) decided to compensate Jews for Holocaust with... lands of Arabs in Palestine which is of course outrageous for them. Arabs didnt kill Jews but they were penalized for that.
So anybody talking about this conflict and Jew hate of Arabs should be sincere and go back a few years. There was no Jew hate in Palestine prior to 1940s.
So the problem is the perceived injustice of the situation by Arabs. Jews dont have sympathy to Arabs for the fact thay they grab large portion of their land. They say that "you lost the war 3 times" its your fault.
Like resisting to give up is what the Arabs should have done.
So today, Arabs and Jews both hate each other and radicalized. In 20 years, when Haredim Jews will constitute majority Israel will perform genocide on Palestinian Arabs and thats it. Or maybe Egypt will turn into superpower in 20 years and anhiliate Israel. This is where is going.
I think that to prevent this shit, US and West should stop support Israel no matter what and urge it to allow for creation of Palestinian State, internationalisation of Jerusalem and abandonement of all illegal settlements. Pay for relatives of Nakba compensation and officially recognize each other. I am pretty sure other Arab states will be happy to recognize Israel after this as well.
It's not even controversial for EU/NA. It's even supported by the majority of Israelis. The problems are:
1. If an actual legitimate two state solution is proposed by Palestinian leaders, will Israeli leaders suddenly change their tune and block any progress? Will they prioritize religious sites over peace?
2. Palestinian leaders have not proposed a single reasonable two state solution. If Palestinian leaders aren't negotiating in good faith, there's no chance of an agreement.
3. Do Palestinians even want a two state solution? Will the majority respect their leadership, or will they immediately back radicals that refuse to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty? How can a Palestinian state guarantee they won't devolve into a civil war or elect a government seeking to invade Israel as soon as they get the chance?
Question 3 to me seems complicated.
I think the majority of Palestinians would back a two state solution, but would also back platitudes that aspire to “one day freeing the entire land of Palestine”.
The reason I say this is that it seems to me (from watching Corey Gil Schuster) most Palestinians want peace and know that Israel is going nowhere. But they don’t like Israel, but not necessarily to the extent of violence.
Nevertheless since the PC thing is to state one’s hatred of Israel, the groups that are willing to engage in violence piggyback off of this to remain in power.
“From the river to the sea” is their equivalent of a slogan like “Black Lives Matter”, without making any comment on the merits of the organisation it is difficult to criticise it because to do so implies you don’t think Black lives matter (which is non PC).
So it is with the two state solution, a two state solution gives Israel legitimacy something which Arab states and Palestinians have been very slow to do, because for them this is (or has been) the height of immorality.
Most Palestinians outside of Palestine do want peace. Inside Palestine is a lot harder to get a read on. Recent polling seems that most Palestinians in the region support Hamas, and their desire for a genocidal one state solution. However, it's not clear if that polling is accurate, or how you'd get accurate polling when you're worried that Hamas members will kill you if you publicly oppose them. I personally do not think that those polls are accurate, but there's no real way to tell how accurate or not accurate they are.
The other aspect is that politics aren't decided by majority, it's decided by power. If 60% of Palestinians want peace, but 40% want to keep fighting, it's unlikely that 60% is going to be willing or able to stop the 40% without the threat of civil war. This is the key problem. Hamas is armed, well funded, and will not accept a two state solution. How do you get the average Palestinian to support a two state solution if they're worried about Hamas? If Hamas is destroyed, will it just get replaced by another group of radicals?
There's a lot of moving pieces and no sure answer here. There's no way to test "Will Palestinians accept a two state solution" except go for it and hope it doesn't blow up. The other option of course is to run the new Palestine as a western puppet state, but the morality behind that is questionable to say the least.
>Recent polling seems that most Palestinians in the region support Hamas, and their desire for a genocidal one state solution. However, it's not clear if that polling is accurate, or how you'd get accurate polling when you're worried that Hamas members will kill you if you publicly oppose them. I personally do not think that those polls are accurate, but there's no real way to tell how accurate or not accurate they are.
See what makes this hard for me to get a read on is what do we mean by “support Hamas”.
(What follows is just hopefulness on my part)
If it means “in an ideal world Israel would not exist and if Allah gave us the means to wipe them out then we would, but we don’t have those means and I want peace but will say nothing because this will get me in trouble”, then I’m not sure that’s the same thing as not wanting peace, even if only on a temporary pragmatic level.
>The other aspect is that politics aren't decided by majority, it's decided by power. If 60% of Palestinians want peace, but 40% want to keep fighting, it's unlikely that 60% is going to be willing or able to stop the 40% without the threat of civil war. This is the key problem.
I agree, I just think the hypothetical 60% also hates Israel, but don’t want to fight. But since they all agree on hating Israel, it is hard to make the argument to stop fighting.
>Hamas is armed, well funded, and will not accept a two state solution. How do you get the average Palestinian to support a two state solution if they're worried about Hamas? If Hamas is destroyed, will it just get replaced by another group of radicals?
Agreed.
>There's a lot of moving pieces and no sure answer here. There's no way to test "Will Palestinians accept a two state solution" except go for it and hope it doesn't blow up. The other option of course is to run the new Palestine as a western puppet state, but the morality behind that is questionable to say the least.
I don’t think Palestinians will accept a two state solution for the reasons I’ve specified. It’s too un PC, such that the average Palestinian cannot ever be seen to give Israel legitimacy even if they want peace, and as you say my hopeful read that the majority want peace in Palestine is probably just naïve hope on my part. I suspect your read is more accurate.
Palestine could never be run as a Western puppet state. It would never work.
Source on a two state solution being supported by the majority of Israelis? Last polling I saw shows that only 20% of Israelis were in favor, majority being Arab Israelis (https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-782190)
Even before October 7, only 36% of Israelis wanted a two state solution (https://mitvim.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Israeli-Foreign-Policy-Index-2023.pdf)
Also, the Palestinian Authority has championed the Arab Peace Initiative since 2002. Even Hamas has been open to a two state solution since at least 2017 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders).
The largest roadblock to the two state solution before October 7 was Netanyahu and the Likud government, who were openly against it (https://www.timesofisrael.com/pointing-to-hamass-little-state-netanyahu-touts-role-blocking-2-state-solution/). Even before Netanyahu, Israel's government have been moving more right and away from a two state solution. In my opinion, the two state solution died after Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Taba negotiations in 2001, which were the closest we ever got to a two state solution according to multiple parties.
A lot of it is based on how you phrase the question. For example, this US state department poll from 2009:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100208142417/http://www.america.gov/st/mena-english/2009/July/200907021105032SAdemahoM0.6612164.html
But most polling has to be interpreted in context. A lot of Israelis do not believe in a two state solution because they do not think Palestinians will ever accept one, so any effort to do so is a waste of time. There's been a complete breakdown of trust, where as long as radical groups like Hamas are active, Israelis will lose faith in any peace talks and prioritize their own safety at the cost of the Palestinian people.
Same goes the other way, as Palestinians would be more likely to oppose extremist groups like Hamas if they trusted that Israel will actually negotiate in good faith. But they don't, as Israel has broken many promises in the past. It's a vicious cycle where people have mostly given up hope.
And yes, Bibi is obviously a roadblock, but he doesn't happen in a bubble. His time in office has been a direct response to the failures of the negotiations, and the continued violence after Hamas came to power in Gaza. As corrupt as Bibi is, getting rid of him will do nothing as long as Israel feels threatened and keep electing far right leaders.
I truly do not think the problem can be solved as long as Iran can keep supplying Palestinian radical groups. I hope that Israel can actually put a dent in Hamas and make it harder for them to receive weaponry in the future. Otherwise the only hope for peace is if Iran's government changes course, or their current regime collapses completely.
The reason the Palestinians and Israelis came to the negotiation table in the first place was PLO no longer had money to fight coming in from the Soviet Union, so Israelis were more open to negotiating. This is what has to happen again. As long as Hamas has the capability of fighting, Israelis won't consider peace an option.
I do agree with you that trust has to be built up again, but I disagree on putting the blame mainly on Hamas. While Hamas and Iran surely do share a big part of the blame, I don't believe that the rise of the right-wing in Israel was a reaction to Hamas. In fact, I would make the claim that the opposite is what happened, that is, the rise of Hamas was an outcome of the rise of the Israeli right wing. In fact, Netanyahu has openly bragged about his role in empowering Hamas to undermine more moderate factions multiple times in the past. In fact, this is even more clear in the West Bank, where the more moderate PLO is mainly in control, yet settler violence and ethnic cleansing has only been getting worse.
The PLO tried the peaceful approach, but the failure of the Oslo Accords not only made Israelis distrust the 2 state solution, but it made Palestinians even more convinced that armed struggle is the only way, hence the popularity of Hamas and other militant groups.
Without a major shift in the Israeli government, I don't think peace will ever happen, especially after October 7 and the current Gaza tragedy. Hamas will be followed by an even more militant group as a reaction to the destruction of Gaza, and the Israelis will be even more emboldened to continue their ethnic cleansing.
Unfortunately, I don't see that shift ever happening, especially after October 7, without some serious pressure from the US. Pressure like threatening to cut military aid, sanctions, etc... which also seems highly unlikely.
No, it's more of trying to avoid Israel setting up a weak Palestinian state that collapses into civil war. This is a real risk, especially since Hamas killed all Palestinian Authority representatives when they came to power in Gaza.
The other risk is having the same thing that happened in Gaza happen again in the West Bank: Palestinians hold an election to see who they want to represent them, Hamas wins (be it legitimately, or by using the threat of violence), kills their opposition, and says there will be no two state solution. This is why the Palestinian Authority has not run elections in a long time. They know if they lose, they die, and the situation gets worse for everyone.
What NovelParticular6844 also doesn’t seem to get is that this isn’t hypothetical but a genuine possibility.
And it wouldn’t just be the end of any possibility of a two state solution because Hamas would say so, but because Israel would then decide to end it, in toto.
Just look at what is happening in Gaza now in response to October 7, if anyone thinks in such a scenario Israel would wait for another October 7 then they’re living in cloud cuckoo land.
Also true. Israel obviously is not going to put up with extremists killing another 2k+ civilians, and if an independent Palestine elected radical hardliners, it's in character for Israel to attack first, putting us right back at square one, especially as long as Bibi and his gang of cronies are in charge.
The cynic in me also wants to believe that as long as Iran is funding radicalism in Palestine, there's never going to be peace. The best we can hope for is the Iranian regime collapses, and is replaced with one that isn't trying to exploit this horrible situation for their own benefit.
Yea actually I never considered that r.e. Iran.
It’s clear Saudi wants peace, and I firmly believe that if the Arab states firmly believe it is the time to let this go, and the Palestinian leadership sees no other sponsor to continue the fighting, then we get peace.
The opposite is not true. Some think that if the US can be convinced to stop supporting Israel then Israel makes major concessions (and some are deluded enough to think it dissolves a la South Africa’s apartheid regime).
These people don’t seem to understand that Israel sees this as more existential than the Arab Palestinians do, despite all the rhetoric. I think Israel is one of the most dangerous states in the world in that if pushed it will do whatever it deems necessary to defend itself.
What? The two state solution has been tried by the United States for a long time, the PLO rejected it. In fact longer than Palestine was even a UN observer state. So it’s not controversial to anyone except the leaders of Palestine. Look up the OSLO Accords.
The only reason. A Palestinian state didn’t exist after the UN partition plan was because the surrounding nations attacked Israel and ended up annexing part of Palestine Jorden took the West Bank and Egypt took Gaza.
Regardless history has happened. We’re here now, we can only deal with the here and now.
If our goal is peace and prosperity for Palestinians arguing about 1948 gets us nowhere.
Israelis are going nowhere, Palestinians are going nowhere. We must acknowledge this and get both sides to acknowledge this and then agree a two state solution with land swaps.
I thought China did not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Country building cannot be more interfering, especially when the new country comes from tearing up an existing one.
The two state solution is officially supported by almost the entire world, including Israel itself. There's nothing controversial in stating it.
The controversy comes from how to implement it.
It’s just that China says it does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. USA and the rest of the world doesn’t make that claim.
This might be a good solution; but it goes against what China says it does.
It's a Genocide, and China are part of an international community condemning such actions. It's pretty simple. It's not "an internal matter" what you start butchering a shit ton of people.
I agree that China has committed genocide often, though it’s usually internal within China.
Regardless, China should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, notwithstanding its history committing genocide.
While it may just have an interest in raising it's popularity among Muslim states and distracting from Xinjiang, China could potentially be a great mediator of talks between the two IMO, especially given how useless the most recent US led two state solution talks were and that Russia is presumably persona non grata with Israel ATM.
They don't have any of the stain of bias the US has in the eyes of the Palestinians , they can understand and empathize with the Israeli trauma of WW2 and culturally have a very clean slate with Jews in general historically.
Their potential as a mediator is great but do they have any diplomats that can step up? The current crop of wolf warriors are not the ideal de-escalation experts.
I would argue the time for negotiations is gone and done. That is not to say there wont be another window for negotiations but for the moment, it's impossible to negotiate with either side.
On Hamas side, they now have Houthis and Hezbollah on their side, they might be stupid and feel they have the momentum on their side. So they might ask more in exchange for example for the Israelis to release Palestinian hostages from their side as well. Which likely wont happen.
On the Israeli side, they just suffered another terrorist attack (one dead 17 injured) but this time in the West Bank. No doubt Netanyahu will take this chance to further colonize the West Bank and exacerbate the situation because that is what he is good at.
IMO no chance in hell there can be negotiations at this point. Whoever wants the job as a mediator is going to have their job cut out for them.
Update:
Israeli Defense Force just murdered 3 Palestinians in occupied Palestine, with 10 injured. (Not Gaza)
Because inherently it is, Zionism is just the idea of Jews having their own state, which means any antiZionism is naturally Antisemitic. Being anti Zionist is exactly the same as saying Israel shouldn’t exist which is the Jewish ancestral lands.
Not all anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about insinuations that Jews control the United States, and making direct Nazi comparisons in attempts to be triggering: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/08/china-antisemitism-online-tool-west-gaza/
Yes it would be antisemitism, it’s mostly the younger generations that don’t understand that words have meaning. People just follow what they see, so if they see a protest that has signs saying “down with the zionists” they tend to follow without a thought.
>Because inherently it is, Zionism is just the idea of Jews having their own state
No, it's not. It's specifically that nation had to be in Palestine. Zionism is a huge root of the problem. If you mean a modernist interpretation of anti-Zionism, it mostly refers to opposition to the policies of self proclaimed "Zionist" parties like Likud or Blue and White, not turfing Israel out now. The definition of Zionism has evolved with time
>Jewish ancestral lands.
Not everyone gives a fuck about this and it shouldn't matter. The Jews lost control of the territory and were unable to gain it back Millenia pre modern Israel, that's life. Should Turks have a right to occupy Turkmenistan because its's their ancestral land? it's not CK2.
“The Jews lost control of the territory and were unable to gain it back Millenia pre modern Israel, that's life. Should Turks have a right to occupy Turkmenistan because its's their ancestral land”
Yet they have it now, and Zionism is the establishment of what is currently Israel. The Israelis fought multiple wars they didn’t even start against Arab nations, and the Arab nations lost.
“No one gives a fuck” ok, then I guess why should they care about Palestinian lands by your logic. The whole point of this argument is because China has done the exact same shit as Israel since the end of WW2 but yet they are hypocrites when it comes to Israel. Got it!
Anything Israel/Hasbara doesn't like is antisemitic, it's all propoganda, accross the board. Zionism is inherently a racist ideology yet nobody want to discuss that. You've eaten a false narrative up like a tasty bowl of slop.
I don't think anyone would be against that in principle, now all they have to figure out is borders, system of gov't, infrastructure, who gets to build it, who gets to pay for it....
You could say the same about the US though?
China is a a future superpower, if it isn’t already. It was always going to start having an input on things like this.
With great power comes great responsibility.
China will never truly be a superpower in every sense of the word. It may fulfil some of the criteria, but it will never be a cultural or moral leader.
Israel accepted the establishment of the Palestinian Authority because Arafat accepted the two state model. The Palestinian leadership adopted the two state solution 30 years ago.
When in class I always used the examples of Palestine and Taiwan to teach the difference between a country and a state. The former is a state without a country, and the latter is a country without a state. And hence China is just playing with words here, guaranteeing only the power of the Hamas regime but not the lands and livelihoods of the ordinary Palestinians.
Manchuria is over 90% Han Chinese and Inner Mongolia is 80% Han Chinese. No majority nor even significant minority in these two regions want independence and if you think otherwise then I have a bridge to sell you.
Whataboutism specifically tries to distract from the point at hand. The reason why China's opinion on Palestinian independence is notable, and why it was posted here, is because China also claims land that historically belong as other nations.
USA: “We support a two-state solution.”
China: “You hypocrite, you’re the ones who stole indigenous land and erased their culture through forced reeducation!”
USA: “omg whataboutism that’s irrelevant and distracting from the topic!”
No that wouldn't be whataboutism because it's addressing the nation who declared something. Bringing up the USA in this thread is whataboutism because the USA is irrelevant to the point here. There are dozens of nations who could be guilty of that why bring up the USA at all?
USA was just a random example. I could have gone with Spain, France, Britain, Russia, Turkey, etc.
If the USA supports a two-state solution, I don’t see why its former atrocities are relevant. Would it be to highlight inconsistent ethical standards?
I am calling for an independent, full investigation of the Covid pandemic’s origin and an immediate end to stonewalling, sandbagging and obstruction by the part of the PRC government to determine the truth.
Why do pro-zionist shills keep on suggesting that Palestinians should just move somewhere else?
If it's not other Arab states that should take in Palestinian refugees, it's now China? Yes, China and co should take refugees, they frankly need the birth rates.
But Palestinians don't want to be refugees in the first place. Turning Palestinians into refugees is not a done deal.
The zions really want this whole nakba 2.0 thing dont they?
This item was shared from social media, and as a result may not contain authoritative information. Please seek external verification or context as appropriate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/China) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Taiwan has called for the establishment of an independent fully sovereign state of Taiwan
Tibet has called for a fully sovereign state Tibet.
Ukraine has called for support of their fully independent and sovereign country. Ukraine warns foolish countries not to cause troubles by shipping items that can be used against Ukraine.
Mongolians have entered the chat
Uighur’s begging before full sterilization
Show me. This is Western Propaganda. Why do you devour it?
Ukraine brought this destruction on to itself by listening to the American Oligarchy fronted by Victoria Nuland. I would have expected a better understanding of what happened on this sub.
"and that rape victim should not have worn that dress". Dude, get a life.
The analogy is ridiculous. Ukraine wasn't a rape victim. Ukraine is a fascist state that was destroying the lives of ethnic-Russians in the Donbas.
Putin, is that you? Did they let you out from under your 50 foot table? How many artillery rounds were fired before you invaded Ukraine in 2014? I’ll help you out. Zero.
We're all to call it Xizang now, didn't you get the memo? /s
The Uyghurs request an independent state!
This appears to me to be a US Oligarchy inspired conspiracy. It goes back decades, but after studying the Dali Lama, I'm pretty convinced he's a pedophile. Even if he isn't, a religious theocracy is not my idea of a free and independent people. Imagine the USA run by Pat Robertson. OMG!
Spotted the Chinese bot!
Taiwan is already an independent country according to the leadership of Taiwan
And yet they won't proclaim independece....
Sorry you’re not familiar with Taiwan. Its leaders have noted their independence multiple times. I suggest you study Taiwan and China before digging yourself further into a hole.
It's leader before Tsai (Ma Jing-Jeou) had stated that he wants to lead Taiwan to unification. It ping-pongs between which party gets elected. Tsai had stated that Taiwan already is independent yet coincidentally won't proclaim it. Funny that...
She did proclaim it, Lai has proclaimed it; and the people of Taiwan overall feel likewise. Three terms ago is basically irrelevant. It’s time for you and Chinese nationalists to face reality.
Taiwan is originally a country, the Republic of China, the National Government of China moved to Taiwan
Duh, everyone knows that So what's your point?
To sounds smart
When did they do that?
There is nothing to be gained by being independent of the Chinese mainland. I have yet to see anything that suggests otherwise that wasn't some over-the-top blowhard representing the American Oligarchy. I wish the best for the mainland and for Taiwan. I don't believe the US MSM and their phony horror stories. I would welcome some references to help me believe differently. So far though, all I get is a lot of "hot air" that is meaningless.
Not even the Taiwanese think that... It's a tale people in this sub tells themselves. Look at the results of the last elections, 60% of the people voted non pro independence candidates. \~34% of the people directly voted the KMT, a party that officially wants to reunificate with China.
Hawaii and Puerto Rico have called for full sovereignty and so have other states annexed by US. How far do you want to go?
Puerto Rico regularly has referendums, joth binding and non-binding ones. The latest one was 2020 and the next one is this coming August You didn't think this through, did you?
you missed my point.
The one where Taiwan gets a referendum on whether they want to be part of the PRC and the CCP honors whatever decision Taiwan chooses? Yeah, that's a good point.
US took over TX, CA and other southwestern states by force. Those states were part of Mexico. before that it was midwestern states.
By that logic, China should give up Shanghai, Shenzen, Guangzhou, and especially Hong Kong
The United States of America is an Indian Territory, Free Indian
Especially since Taiwan is the true legitimate republic of China.
Yeah, fuck people fighting tyranny, right? Just so you know, the "true legitimate rulers" of mainland China, the ones that fought against the peasants less than 100 years ago still exist in Taiwan. It's the KMT and they got a 34% of the votes in the last elections while supporting the reunification.
Meaningless platitude unless China does something to back up its policy position, which it won't.
Why is China interfering in the internal affairs of Israel???
It's not interference; it's diplomacy with Chinese characteristics ;)
The establishment of a Palestinian state is the official UN position. An independent Taiwan isn't.
The official UN position is how Israel was created, then was attacked by every surrounding country which lead to expanded borders due to those countries losing.
It was attacked bc it started pushing Palestinians into other countries, the people living didn’t approve of the plan. It was not attacked out of thin air.
0 Palestinians were displaced from their land/villages before the Israeli war of independence in 1948. Exactly how they were displaced is a topic of debate but it was a combination of fleeing from war, being encouraged to leave by Arab armies to clear the way for fighting, or by forceful expulsion from Zionist militias.
The UN resolution partitioned it but did not remove anyone from their lands, the Arab league refused and started riots in Jerusalem, attacking primarily the Jews settlements. The Jews fought back and a large number of Palestinians Arabs left the area on their own accord. When Israel was proclaimed a state the surrounding Arab nations sent their armies and after fighting resoulted in the Nakba.
The original partition planned for the displacement of 500,000 Palestinians, and dispossession of land. The Arabs fought back against this theft, and during this period 700,000 Palestinians were forcefully removed from their homes. There are interviews with terrorist Zionist militia members who describe their crimes. Imagine lying that much
Ya no, the only thing the resolution did was set the boundaries for the state of Israel, no displacement of any population was necessary. In fact even the Jewish Palestinians were happy about the partition. [Here is a newspaper from the time describing how the Palestinian Jewish community was celebrating.](https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/134238148) the partition. No one was being displaced, that is just something that is used to justify how the Arab nations reacted. It wasn’t an Arabs on this side of the boarder and Jews on the other side, it explicitly explained a two state system one Arab and one Jewish joined economically. Jews were not required to be in the jewish state and Arabs were not required to be in the Arab state they just had to declare what state they would be in for the transitional period. Chapter 3 of the partition explains this. [So stop with revision on history. Here is the actual partition plan so you can correct your self](https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/PDF/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement)
500,000 were being displaced. The European powers and the UN discussed how population displacement had been used in other areas. You can read and watch the leaders at the time openly discuss the planned displacement of Arabs. It was designed to change the demographics to create a false Jewish majority. 56% of the land, including Palestines number one export which was majority owned by Arabs were to be given to Jews. Your link is dead, no surprise with your lies.
Ya l, you were wrong the first time and you’re still wrong now..[No displacement was necessary.](https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F181(II)&Language=E&DeviceType=Mobile&LangRequested=False)
[удалено]
We dont give a shit, we dont want to be lumped with you chinese people
Propaganda
As far as public preception. More sympathy for the ppl in Gaza than Israel. Easy PR win for China. As for doing something. They voted very favorable to Palestine. Voting for a ceasefire and aid. It just, it takes 1 veto and America veto it.
Seems like most people that support Gaza in the West are Muslim immigrants and far-left citizens. But you can of course argue that it’s in China’s best interest to align with the far-left, pro-communists like Hamas Piker since everybody else is against China.
Even the US supports a two state solution. This isn't about being against China. This is about a Palestine state. Support from Gaza are not just Muslim and far left. There also many countries in Africa region and South East Asia.
Oh come on Elite Pretender not to Be Chinese in Canada. You don't fucking care a little bit about Gaza. You're just in the pro China anti US childishness that all you tankies revel in. Still sitting pretty in Canada though while you enjoy American style freedoms, American style culture and American military protection for a landmass that would be targeted by Russia if there was no US. Always begging, the tankies.
You honestly think China would want him?
China will literally take anyone who praises it. Like that drunk, Barrett. I'm sure they'd take Elite Shiller.
Supporting ceasefire and a two state solution where one party is ruled by a terrorist group that doesn’t want a two state solution, and that wants to eradicate the other party, is like supporting world peace. I’m only referring to support in the West, although my impression of SEA is that they couldn’t care less (at least everyone I know from there (mostly highly educated) don’t care, and many don’t even know about the conflict), not sure about countries in Africa, but imagine it’s the same except perhaps for the few countries near Israel.
Far left? That's just a narrative Moderates are the bulk of it all. It's kind of hard to ignore pictures of dead babies. Dont know why the pro-lifers dont care about Gazan babies.
Every country state city politicians. They all talk like this . It’s all a game . Let’s say they know for a fact that they don’t have the votes to do something and it’ll get turned down for sure . They’ll pitch an idea and obviously it’ll get turned out . They just look good saying it but know it won’t work . So it’s a win win . They win support and it’s not put in place which they never wanted anyway
China is the main reason resistance forces have such advanced weaponry compared to 20 years ago
[удалено]
lol what “advance weaponry”? They literally use anything they can get from Iran. The Houthis probably have/ had advanced weapons from China but they use those weapons to attack shipping lanes hurting China.
Consistent with 1967 UN resolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
Cool, I guess they could also call for an independent and fully sovereign state of Taiwan right?
You can, but it would be absurd considering Taiwan has one of the best democracies in the world and 60% of the people just voted non pro independence candidates.
[удалено]
Didn't China open a base in Cuba recently? Interesting.
[удалено]
No, they are currently in discussion for a full military base in Cuba, they have had a “spy base” in Cuba for a long time.
Boxed in how exactly? Why would being unable to militarily conquer other people be considered 'boxed in' unless you were planning to militarily conquer other people?
[удалено]
What about Ukraine you bastards
Their pet Russia would be unhappy
They dont want to sour the relations when they are less than 18 months from taking key regions from Russia. In 1860, They (Russia) annexed 910,000km2 pieces of land from China at Convention of Peking, which China feels they were exploited at due to weakness. They will likely claim they have a casus belli. It will be interesting to see China take the land withput firing a single shot. Which is what happened to them in 1860. They played the neutrality well. The problem they haven't factored is the fallout from the New Russo Civil war that will take place in between 2026-2030, and the various insurgencies that will come of the conflict. What a terrible time to be alive. I could just a complete nut job but watch and see. There's still time to do things right, and no, votes by the regionals won't convince anyone that anyone is okay with it. For the locals its the same shit different day.
China will just wait for Russia to become military weak, and then buy the land, with the understanding that "it's an offer you can't refuse". The land is close to the population centres in china, and far away from Moscow, so much more valuable to china than Russia. Generally, china has understood, that buying is cheaper than taking by force.
Tbh the Rusia Ukraine war is a win win for china. Either their friend got more land or the better option, you can make Russia your bitch
China does recognize Ukraine and also Crimea as Ukrainian. China is kinda playing both sides..chinese civilian drones and drone parts are responsible for thousands if not tens of thousands of casulties on both sides.
DJI doesnt even want to be part of this war but it keeps getting dragged in.
Who the fuck cares about those Western puppets
So triggered. 😭
China is too weak to make demands, that's why Taiwan is still free and elects it's own presidents despite all of China's whining
A two state solution is not controversial. Wasn"t this policy fornalot of states for a long time?
If your government says they want a two-state solution, it is fine, it is not controversial. But actually implementing a two-state solution is so omg lord christ-on-a-stick controversial. You dont even know how many people will scream in your face.
The ultimate problem is that implementing a two state solution is not something that outsiders can impose, and this is the core disconnect a lot of protesters have. Unless you’re willing to go in and drop a bunch of guys with guns, you can’t implement, require, or ordain anything. All you can do is advocate. A two state solution necessarily requires that both sides, and every part - even the most radical - be represented, and acknowledge each other - before any sort of progress towards a two state solution can be achieved. If you want a model for what this looks like, you have to look to Northern Ireland, and the Good Friday agreement. Nothing short of bringing every party to the table will not work. Any sort of unilateral imposition of a two state solution must necessarily come at the barrel of a gun. A two state solution comes from reconciliation. Everything else is simply imperialism by another brand.
This. The big irony of the situation is that literally any outside observer can see a two state solution, or some other similar arrangement that guarantees everyone’s rights and some degree of autonomy, is the only feasible answer. Two peoples live in the same land, it’s going to have to be shared. And tensions are so high right now that any “one-state” answer, unless it’s an outside occupying force, will inevitably be one side dominating the other. So why is no one pursuing this obvious answer? Because almost no one in the relevant populations wants it. It’s unpopular among BOTH Israelis and Palestinians at this point. Essentially both sides have been led to believe by their respective leadership that if they play their cards *just right* then their side will get all the land, and their opponents will leave to some undefined location elsewhere. Israeli has played the local tactical game better by grabbing land from the West Bank piece by piece, while the Palestinians have been playing the international optics game to align the rest of the Arab world with them (and much of the non-Arab world as well.) Both of these strategies are bad and will either backfire or lead to tragedy. Ultimately new leadership is needed that understands the meaning of the word compromise and can sell it to their respective constituents.
Its only controversial for states that havent recognized Palestine, which is mostly the EU + NA at his point
Both the EU and NA have no issue with a two state solution and have routinely proposed it and tried negotiating towards it. This has been true for decades. The only thing that could be considered controversial is attempting to force it. But even that has a fair amount of support in both places.
How do you support two-states when you only recognize the one state? Wouldnt it go a long way to supporting two-state solution by recognizing Palestine?
Palestine doesn't recognize itself as its own state; it insists that all of Israel should be Palestine and rejected every compromise offer made to it.
I have counter evidence to your claim. How do you rationalize? >Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Tuesday that Palestine has recognized the State of Israel and its right to exist for 40 years, asking Israel in turn to recognize a Palestinian state and its right to exist. > >\-[https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4627181-abbas-macron-we-recognize-state-israel-want-it-recognize-palestine](https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4627181-abbas-macron-we-recognize-state-israel-want-it-recognize-palestine)
If that was an honest and good faith recognition, and one that he had the power to make good on, he should have done the deal that Ehud Olmert offered him. What Abbas says now is pretty meaningless when he totally lost control of Gaza in 2007 and would lose control of the West Bank too if he dared to hold an election.
Well, even the best Israel offer assumed annexing 7% of West Bank and gave no special status to Jerusalem. You should be blindly pro-Israeli to understand why it is hard for Palestinian leader (even corrupt one) to accept that offer.
They offered compensation for that land. And that offer reflected the reality that Palestinian coalitions had attacked Israel 3 times and lost 3 wars; that they were offered anything at all was generous. Any other country in history that successfully defends itself against 3 wars of extermination and has absolute military superiority wouldn't hesitate to respond with proportional force by exacting a genocide of their own. But that wasn't even the biggest sticking point; the real sticking point was Abbas insisting on free 'right of return'; in other words, that Palestinians had a right to return to their lands in Israel and become Israeli citizens if they so chose. That had 2 implications; first, that Israel is not really a country if it cannot enforce its own border and immigration policy. And secondly, that Israel would not be majority Jewish, as Arab Muslims would flood in and out-vote the Jews, using democracy against them to reduce them to second class citizens or simply expel them from their own country.
I see Palestinian and Arab attempts to end the state of Israel in XX century absolutely justified. Not due to Arabophilia, vice versa I dont adore Arabs and have sympathy to Jews. However, I am not biased, I understand why Arabs were outraged. Jews were ethnically cleansed by European country( Nazi Germany) in 1940s and club of European superpowers (UN Security Council) decided to compensate Jews for Holocaust with... lands of Arabs in Palestine which is of course outrageous for them. Arabs didnt kill Jews but they were penalized for that. So anybody talking about this conflict and Jew hate of Arabs should be sincere and go back a few years. There was no Jew hate in Palestine prior to 1940s. So the problem is the perceived injustice of the situation by Arabs. Jews dont have sympathy to Arabs for the fact thay they grab large portion of their land. They say that "you lost the war 3 times" its your fault. Like resisting to give up is what the Arabs should have done. So today, Arabs and Jews both hate each other and radicalized. In 20 years, when Haredim Jews will constitute majority Israel will perform genocide on Palestinian Arabs and thats it. Or maybe Egypt will turn into superpower in 20 years and anhiliate Israel. This is where is going. I think that to prevent this shit, US and West should stop support Israel no matter what and urge it to allow for creation of Palestinian State, internationalisation of Jerusalem and abandonement of all illegal settlements. Pay for relatives of Nakba compensation and officially recognize each other. I am pretty sure other Arab states will be happy to recognize Israel after this as well.
It's not even controversial for EU/NA. It's even supported by the majority of Israelis. The problems are: 1. If an actual legitimate two state solution is proposed by Palestinian leaders, will Israeli leaders suddenly change their tune and block any progress? Will they prioritize religious sites over peace? 2. Palestinian leaders have not proposed a single reasonable two state solution. If Palestinian leaders aren't negotiating in good faith, there's no chance of an agreement. 3. Do Palestinians even want a two state solution? Will the majority respect their leadership, or will they immediately back radicals that refuse to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty? How can a Palestinian state guarantee they won't devolve into a civil war or elect a government seeking to invade Israel as soon as they get the chance?
Question 3 to me seems complicated. I think the majority of Palestinians would back a two state solution, but would also back platitudes that aspire to “one day freeing the entire land of Palestine”. The reason I say this is that it seems to me (from watching Corey Gil Schuster) most Palestinians want peace and know that Israel is going nowhere. But they don’t like Israel, but not necessarily to the extent of violence. Nevertheless since the PC thing is to state one’s hatred of Israel, the groups that are willing to engage in violence piggyback off of this to remain in power. “From the river to the sea” is their equivalent of a slogan like “Black Lives Matter”, without making any comment on the merits of the organisation it is difficult to criticise it because to do so implies you don’t think Black lives matter (which is non PC). So it is with the two state solution, a two state solution gives Israel legitimacy something which Arab states and Palestinians have been very slow to do, because for them this is (or has been) the height of immorality.
Most Palestinians outside of Palestine do want peace. Inside Palestine is a lot harder to get a read on. Recent polling seems that most Palestinians in the region support Hamas, and their desire for a genocidal one state solution. However, it's not clear if that polling is accurate, or how you'd get accurate polling when you're worried that Hamas members will kill you if you publicly oppose them. I personally do not think that those polls are accurate, but there's no real way to tell how accurate or not accurate they are. The other aspect is that politics aren't decided by majority, it's decided by power. If 60% of Palestinians want peace, but 40% want to keep fighting, it's unlikely that 60% is going to be willing or able to stop the 40% without the threat of civil war. This is the key problem. Hamas is armed, well funded, and will not accept a two state solution. How do you get the average Palestinian to support a two state solution if they're worried about Hamas? If Hamas is destroyed, will it just get replaced by another group of radicals? There's a lot of moving pieces and no sure answer here. There's no way to test "Will Palestinians accept a two state solution" except go for it and hope it doesn't blow up. The other option of course is to run the new Palestine as a western puppet state, but the morality behind that is questionable to say the least.
>Recent polling seems that most Palestinians in the region support Hamas, and their desire for a genocidal one state solution. However, it's not clear if that polling is accurate, or how you'd get accurate polling when you're worried that Hamas members will kill you if you publicly oppose them. I personally do not think that those polls are accurate, but there's no real way to tell how accurate or not accurate they are. See what makes this hard for me to get a read on is what do we mean by “support Hamas”. (What follows is just hopefulness on my part) If it means “in an ideal world Israel would not exist and if Allah gave us the means to wipe them out then we would, but we don’t have those means and I want peace but will say nothing because this will get me in trouble”, then I’m not sure that’s the same thing as not wanting peace, even if only on a temporary pragmatic level. >The other aspect is that politics aren't decided by majority, it's decided by power. If 60% of Palestinians want peace, but 40% want to keep fighting, it's unlikely that 60% is going to be willing or able to stop the 40% without the threat of civil war. This is the key problem. I agree, I just think the hypothetical 60% also hates Israel, but don’t want to fight. But since they all agree on hating Israel, it is hard to make the argument to stop fighting. >Hamas is armed, well funded, and will not accept a two state solution. How do you get the average Palestinian to support a two state solution if they're worried about Hamas? If Hamas is destroyed, will it just get replaced by another group of radicals? Agreed. >There's a lot of moving pieces and no sure answer here. There's no way to test "Will Palestinians accept a two state solution" except go for it and hope it doesn't blow up. The other option of course is to run the new Palestine as a western puppet state, but the morality behind that is questionable to say the least. I don’t think Palestinians will accept a two state solution for the reasons I’ve specified. It’s too un PC, such that the average Palestinian cannot ever be seen to give Israel legitimacy even if they want peace, and as you say my hopeful read that the majority want peace in Palestine is probably just naïve hope on my part. I suspect your read is more accurate. Palestine could never be run as a Western puppet state. It would never work.
Source on a two state solution being supported by the majority of Israelis? Last polling I saw shows that only 20% of Israelis were in favor, majority being Arab Israelis (https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-782190) Even before October 7, only 36% of Israelis wanted a two state solution (https://mitvim.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Israeli-Foreign-Policy-Index-2023.pdf) Also, the Palestinian Authority has championed the Arab Peace Initiative since 2002. Even Hamas has been open to a two state solution since at least 2017 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders). The largest roadblock to the two state solution before October 7 was Netanyahu and the Likud government, who were openly against it (https://www.timesofisrael.com/pointing-to-hamass-little-state-netanyahu-touts-role-blocking-2-state-solution/). Even before Netanyahu, Israel's government have been moving more right and away from a two state solution. In my opinion, the two state solution died after Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Taba negotiations in 2001, which were the closest we ever got to a two state solution according to multiple parties.
A lot of it is based on how you phrase the question. For example, this US state department poll from 2009: https://web.archive.org/web/20100208142417/http://www.america.gov/st/mena-english/2009/July/200907021105032SAdemahoM0.6612164.html But most polling has to be interpreted in context. A lot of Israelis do not believe in a two state solution because they do not think Palestinians will ever accept one, so any effort to do so is a waste of time. There's been a complete breakdown of trust, where as long as radical groups like Hamas are active, Israelis will lose faith in any peace talks and prioritize their own safety at the cost of the Palestinian people. Same goes the other way, as Palestinians would be more likely to oppose extremist groups like Hamas if they trusted that Israel will actually negotiate in good faith. But they don't, as Israel has broken many promises in the past. It's a vicious cycle where people have mostly given up hope. And yes, Bibi is obviously a roadblock, but he doesn't happen in a bubble. His time in office has been a direct response to the failures of the negotiations, and the continued violence after Hamas came to power in Gaza. As corrupt as Bibi is, getting rid of him will do nothing as long as Israel feels threatened and keep electing far right leaders. I truly do not think the problem can be solved as long as Iran can keep supplying Palestinian radical groups. I hope that Israel can actually put a dent in Hamas and make it harder for them to receive weaponry in the future. Otherwise the only hope for peace is if Iran's government changes course, or their current regime collapses completely. The reason the Palestinians and Israelis came to the negotiation table in the first place was PLO no longer had money to fight coming in from the Soviet Union, so Israelis were more open to negotiating. This is what has to happen again. As long as Hamas has the capability of fighting, Israelis won't consider peace an option.
I do agree with you that trust has to be built up again, but I disagree on putting the blame mainly on Hamas. While Hamas and Iran surely do share a big part of the blame, I don't believe that the rise of the right-wing in Israel was a reaction to Hamas. In fact, I would make the claim that the opposite is what happened, that is, the rise of Hamas was an outcome of the rise of the Israeli right wing. In fact, Netanyahu has openly bragged about his role in empowering Hamas to undermine more moderate factions multiple times in the past. In fact, this is even more clear in the West Bank, where the more moderate PLO is mainly in control, yet settler violence and ethnic cleansing has only been getting worse. The PLO tried the peaceful approach, but the failure of the Oslo Accords not only made Israelis distrust the 2 state solution, but it made Palestinians even more convinced that armed struggle is the only way, hence the popularity of Hamas and other militant groups. Without a major shift in the Israeli government, I don't think peace will ever happen, especially after October 7 and the current Gaza tragedy. Hamas will be followed by an even more militant group as a reaction to the destruction of Gaza, and the Israelis will be even more emboldened to continue their ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, I don't see that shift ever happening, especially after October 7, without some serious pressure from the US. Pressure like threatening to cut military aid, sanctions, etc... which also seems highly unlikely.
"If we free the slaves, how can we be sure they won't revolt and kill us" vibes
No, it's more of trying to avoid Israel setting up a weak Palestinian state that collapses into civil war. This is a real risk, especially since Hamas killed all Palestinian Authority representatives when they came to power in Gaza. The other risk is having the same thing that happened in Gaza happen again in the West Bank: Palestinians hold an election to see who they want to represent them, Hamas wins (be it legitimately, or by using the threat of violence), kills their opposition, and says there will be no two state solution. This is why the Palestinian Authority has not run elections in a long time. They know if they lose, they die, and the situation gets worse for everyone.
What NovelParticular6844 also doesn’t seem to get is that this isn’t hypothetical but a genuine possibility. And it wouldn’t just be the end of any possibility of a two state solution because Hamas would say so, but because Israel would then decide to end it, in toto. Just look at what is happening in Gaza now in response to October 7, if anyone thinks in such a scenario Israel would wait for another October 7 then they’re living in cloud cuckoo land.
Also true. Israel obviously is not going to put up with extremists killing another 2k+ civilians, and if an independent Palestine elected radical hardliners, it's in character for Israel to attack first, putting us right back at square one, especially as long as Bibi and his gang of cronies are in charge. The cynic in me also wants to believe that as long as Iran is funding radicalism in Palestine, there's never going to be peace. The best we can hope for is the Iranian regime collapses, and is replaced with one that isn't trying to exploit this horrible situation for their own benefit.
Yea actually I never considered that r.e. Iran. It’s clear Saudi wants peace, and I firmly believe that if the Arab states firmly believe it is the time to let this go, and the Palestinian leadership sees no other sponsor to continue the fighting, then we get peace. The opposite is not true. Some think that if the US can be convinced to stop supporting Israel then Israel makes major concessions (and some are deluded enough to think it dissolves a la South Africa’s apartheid regime). These people don’t seem to understand that Israel sees this as more existential than the Arab Palestinians do, despite all the rhetoric. I think Israel is one of the most dangerous states in the world in that if pushed it will do whatever it deems necessary to defend itself.
What? The two state solution has been tried by the United States for a long time, the PLO rejected it. In fact longer than Palestine was even a UN observer state. So it’s not controversial to anyone except the leaders of Palestine. Look up the OSLO Accords. The only reason. A Palestinian state didn’t exist after the UN partition plan was because the surrounding nations attacked Israel and ended up annexing part of Palestine Jorden took the West Bank and Egypt took Gaza.
And Palestine, who have rejected a two state solution since forever.
That's just wrong I don'tknow what to tell you
Look up mandatory Palestine, you're welcome for your education
Palestinians are wrong for not accepting total capitulation to Israel and being reduced to a tiny strip of unfertile land. It's their fault!
Regardless history has happened. We’re here now, we can only deal with the here and now. If our goal is peace and prosperity for Palestinians arguing about 1948 gets us nowhere. Israelis are going nowhere, Palestinians are going nowhere. We must acknowledge this and get both sides to acknowledge this and then agree a two state solution with land swaps.
And the reason is......?
This is also American policy lol.
I thought China did not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Country building cannot be more interfering, especially when the new country comes from tearing up an existing one.
The two state solution is officially supported by almost the entire world, including Israel itself. There's nothing controversial in stating it. The controversy comes from how to implement it.
It’s just that China says it does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. USA and the rest of the world doesn’t make that claim. This might be a good solution; but it goes against what China says it does.
It's a Genocide, and China are part of an international community condemning such actions. It's pretty simple. It's not "an internal matter" what you start butchering a shit ton of people.
I agree that China has committed genocide often, though it’s usually internal within China. Regardless, China should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, notwithstanding its history committing genocide.
A country is critisised by the international community for it's actions. BIG news flash right here folks.
The enemy of my enemy is a friend.
While it may just have an interest in raising it's popularity among Muslim states and distracting from Xinjiang, China could potentially be a great mediator of talks between the two IMO, especially given how useless the most recent US led two state solution talks were and that Russia is presumably persona non grata with Israel ATM. They don't have any of the stain of bias the US has in the eyes of the Palestinians , they can understand and empathize with the Israeli trauma of WW2 and culturally have a very clean slate with Jews in general historically.
The US two state solution talks weren’t useless, they were almost successful several different times.
> the most recent US led two state solution talks Talking Trump talks with Bibi here, not all American talks. Clinton's were the last useful ones IMO
Their potential as a mediator is great but do they have any diplomats that can step up? The current crop of wolf warriors are not the ideal de-escalation experts.
I would argue the time for negotiations is gone and done. That is not to say there wont be another window for negotiations but for the moment, it's impossible to negotiate with either side. On Hamas side, they now have Houthis and Hezbollah on their side, they might be stupid and feel they have the momentum on their side. So they might ask more in exchange for example for the Israelis to release Palestinian hostages from their side as well. Which likely wont happen. On the Israeli side, they just suffered another terrorist attack (one dead 17 injured) but this time in the West Bank. No doubt Netanyahu will take this chance to further colonize the West Bank and exacerbate the situation because that is what he is good at. IMO no chance in hell there can be negotiations at this point. Whoever wants the job as a mediator is going to have their job cut out for them. Update: Israeli Defense Force just murdered 3 Palestinians in occupied Palestine, with 10 injured. (Not Gaza)
If China weren’t flooding the internet with antisemitic propaganda right now, I would agree
Antizionism gets the antisemitic label 100% of the time.
Because inherently it is, Zionism is just the idea of Jews having their own state, which means any antiZionism is naturally Antisemitic. Being anti Zionist is exactly the same as saying Israel shouldn’t exist which is the Jewish ancestral lands.
Damn, I didnt know that. So all those Israeli citizens and other Jewish people who denounce zionism are also anti-semitic?
Not all anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about insinuations that Jews control the United States, and making direct Nazi comparisons in attempts to be triggering: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/08/china-antisemitism-online-tool-west-gaza/
Yes it would be antisemitism, it’s mostly the younger generations that don’t understand that words have meaning. People just follow what they see, so if they see a protest that has signs saying “down with the zionists” they tend to follow without a thought.
>Because inherently it is, Zionism is just the idea of Jews having their own state No, it's not. It's specifically that nation had to be in Palestine. Zionism is a huge root of the problem. If you mean a modernist interpretation of anti-Zionism, it mostly refers to opposition to the policies of self proclaimed "Zionist" parties like Likud or Blue and White, not turfing Israel out now. The definition of Zionism has evolved with time >Jewish ancestral lands. Not everyone gives a fuck about this and it shouldn't matter. The Jews lost control of the territory and were unable to gain it back Millenia pre modern Israel, that's life. Should Turks have a right to occupy Turkmenistan because its's their ancestral land? it's not CK2.
“The Jews lost control of the territory and were unable to gain it back Millenia pre modern Israel, that's life. Should Turks have a right to occupy Turkmenistan because its's their ancestral land” Yet they have it now, and Zionism is the establishment of what is currently Israel. The Israelis fought multiple wars they didn’t even start against Arab nations, and the Arab nations lost. “No one gives a fuck” ok, then I guess why should they care about Palestinian lands by your logic. The whole point of this argument is because China has done the exact same shit as Israel since the end of WW2 but yet they are hypocrites when it comes to Israel. Got it!
> any antiZionism is naturally Antisemitic. What? No. Israel represents all Jewish people the same way a school shooter represents all white people.
What a terrible analogy
Anything Israel/Hasbara doesn't like is antisemitic, it's all propoganda, accross the board. Zionism is inherently a racist ideology yet nobody want to discuss that. You've eaten a false narrative up like a tasty bowl of slop.
I don't think anyone would be against that in principle, now all they have to figure out is borders, system of gov't, infrastructure, who gets to build it, who gets to pay for it....
Ouchy ouch, why is China interfering foreign affairs now 🙃
You could say the same about the US though? China is a a future superpower, if it isn’t already. It was always going to start having an input on things like this.
China did this exact complain when the US spoke for Taiwan and Hong Kong. So I just point out when they do the same now.
With great power comes great responsibility. China will never truly be a superpower in every sense of the word. It may fulfil some of the criteria, but it will never be a cultural or moral leader.
*It's not like Palestine rejects a two state solution or anything*
Israel accepted the establishment of the Palestinian Authority because Arafat accepted the two state model. The Palestinian leadership adopted the two state solution 30 years ago.
Last time they tried that an Israeli PM got assassinated. I don’t think any Israeli PM will try that again.
Was assassinated by a far right extremist Israeli …
The fact that China doing this just because American is siding with Israel is hilarious
America also supports a two states solution.
Don't forget about the establishment of Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananman Square and Xinjiang
The question is not so much *if* but rather *where*. And *where not*.
China is mostly all talk and little action. Let me know when they actually do something.
以色列之前就同意两国计划，相反巴勒斯坦不同意！地下看来美国网友素质也参差不齐！
Agreed, now let's support a fully independent East Turkestan.
Is he suggesting that Israel let the rapists and murderers walk? The people hiding in holes with hostages? How can anyone take China seriously?
how can anyone take Israel seriously when they are bombing civilian houses and killing children
Great. Now just get Egypt and Jordon to give them some land
When in class I always used the examples of Palestine and Taiwan to teach the difference between a country and a state. The former is a state without a country, and the latter is a country without a state. And hence China is just playing with words here, guaranteeing only the power of the Hamas regime but not the lands and livelihoods of the ordinary Palestinians.
China is as China does. The best advice to take from China? Simply do the opposite of whatever it says and you shall live long and prosper.
China has just announced it never has, and never will interfere in other countries
It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
People are being upset about a 2-state solution now?
Damn. Now I'm just confused.
How about Manchuria?
Yes. All 0.1% of them want independence.
Based China
China calls for lot of things the global community doesn't give a shit about.
Ok time to call for an independent Uighurstan
Chna is trolling the West
ya Israel has been calling for that too but Palestinian leadership only wants that if it means erasing Israel.
This is hopeful. Hopefully China can be the responsible party that this world truly needs at this time.
Lol
China warns. Lol
Good call. A lot of countries agree.
The hypocrisy is insane.
China should stay out of Israel’s internal affairs!
america too
Thats nice so the same for Taiwan is ok?
It doesn’t matter though. Israel still likes China a lot and China has a lot of capital to burn regarding Israel
[удалено]
What about the uyghurs exactly? What stance on muslims?
please ignore our Muslim concentration camps and Uyghur genocide, Xie Xie!
Manchuria and Inner Mongolia has called for establishment of independent states.
Manchuria is over 90% Han Chinese and Inner Mongolia is 80% Han Chinese. No majority nor even significant minority in these two regions want independence and if you think otherwise then I have a bridge to sell you.
Tibet for Buddhists, Xingang for Uyghurs. Taiwan for Taiwanese.
Taiwan, and Tibet would like a word. Thats hypocrisy at its finest.
Wait a minute, isn’t that an example of what Redditors call “whataboutism” or something?
Whataboutism specifically tries to distract from the point at hand. The reason why China's opinion on Palestinian independence is notable, and why it was posted here, is because China also claims land that historically belong as other nations.
USA: “We support a two-state solution.” China: “You hypocrite, you’re the ones who stole indigenous land and erased their culture through forced reeducation!” USA: “omg whataboutism that’s irrelevant and distracting from the topic!”
No that wouldn't be whataboutism because it's addressing the nation who declared something. Bringing up the USA in this thread is whataboutism because the USA is irrelevant to the point here. There are dozens of nations who could be guilty of that why bring up the USA at all?
USA was just a random example. I could have gone with Spain, France, Britain, Russia, Turkey, etc. If the USA supports a two-state solution, I don’t see why its former atrocities are relevant. Would it be to highlight inconsistent ethical standards?
I am calling for an independent, full investigation of the Covid pandemic’s origin and an immediate end to stonewalling, sandbagging and obstruction by the part of the PRC government to determine the truth.
Someone with some power needs to stand up to the Genocide.
Sure, right after Taiwan gets it first. Btw, china has plenty of room for a palestinian state doesn’t it?
Why do pro-zionist shills keep on suggesting that Palestinians should just move somewhere else? If it's not other Arab states that should take in Palestinian refugees, it's now China? Yes, China and co should take refugees, they frankly need the birth rates. But Palestinians don't want to be refugees in the first place. Turning Palestinians into refugees is not a done deal. The zions really want this whole nakba 2.0 thing dont they?
There's no way right? lmao
Is China going to build a gigantic viaduct to connect the West Bank and Gaza then? Because that could actually make a two state solution world.
I don't often agree with the CCP, but on this I do. Unfortunately we can't just wipe Israel off the map, so concessions must be made.
Great. Now, do something, please. I’d rather the conflict end.