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.
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.
Yes I support a 2 state solution: Syria controls Golan heights Everything else is Palestine
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.
I’m surprised people here are still surprised at China taking a “”“middle-ground”“” stance on geopolitical issues that don’t directly impact them.
A huge part of their foreign policy since the 90s has been a philosophy of “don’t stir the hornets nest” and even though that seems to be changing now that they’ve become an economic superpower, they stil don’t intervene too much where they don’t need to. Ignoring whether it’s moral or not, it’s rooted in pragmatism for their own survival first.
I’m still learning, and I believe new people that come here will likely ask similar repeated questions. We’re all at different stages. I appreciate everyone’s perspective from this post, and I believe we have had some really good discussions and points that has already helped me grow.
Fair enough, sometimes I forget about that. Being from the Global South myself we constantly have this debate because China really doesn’t do much to help revolutions against states they have deals with (as opposed to earlier China or USSR), so probably feels more obvious to me than it actually is.
Your question was fine, I was knee-jerky, don’t feel discouraged to ask more in the future.
Edit: Also, besides what others have said about China following UN decisions, them supporting a two-state solution is fundamentally different from Western countries which provide aid for Israel also backing that. The first can pass as ineffective, naïve or disinterested, but the second is downright hypocritical by pretending they have no agency on what their colony does.
It’s just another iteration of the Eternal September. Nothing too surprising imo
China’s position is understandable and unsurprising, yet still disappointing. In regards to their foreign policy, they are still very far away of being able to fill the shoes of the Soviet Union.
One of the Soviet Union’s problems was over extension though. They put a lot of energy into external affairs at the expense of internal ones, with mixed results. On the one hand we got Cuba, and on the other we have raging fascism in Ukraine and Poland, and the soviet union was killed and gifted by capitalists. China has not achieved the same things abroad, but has done well for its citizens so far.
I think no one expects China to arm the 2n International Brigades nor to have a hand in supporting every single communist party on Earth. But from the overextension that the USSR suffered (which I will remind you that at the time of its dissolution included a full on, 10 year-long war in Afghanistan) to the absolute neutrality that China displays there is a long way, with both of them staying at opposite extremes of the same axis.
We have to ask ourselves if it would be so extremely disastrous for China to simply condemn the act of imperialism and colonialism that is the existance of the state of Israel as it is today, and leave it there. It’s not like this statement will appease anyone, with Biden already calling Xi a dictator nonchalantly and with the same aggressive US military maneuvers as always still going on periodically in Taiwan. It wouldn’t even be that outlandish to simply retreat recognition of Israel as a state, which they wouldn’t be the first to do.
China’s pursue of neutrality and refusal to interact with the broader worldwide communist and/or anti-imperialist movement is exhausting. I’m not even talking about active statements of external policy even: the USSR’s “Progress Publishers” used to take every text on Marxism-Leninism they could get their hands on and export them translated to 50 languages, while in order to get a copy of “The Governance of China” in one of the few languages it exists in you could see people in back in r/GenZedong having to write a letter to their local Chinese embassy written in unicorn blood hoping that they would agree to hand them a copy of, at most, one of the three existing volumes.
That’s fair.
The USSR from the early 70s until its collapse basicaly held a pro-palestine 2 state solution position. WHat makes you think even if they survived they would have had a noticably better position than China’s
This is what makes me think so.
Perhaps the USSR wouldn’t have a noticeably better position than China nowadays. Perhaps the USSR would be a nordic-like social democracy too, since it’s been 30 years since it fell and at this time we can imagine anything if we engage in the waste of time that is alt-history.
But if you focus away from the Israel-Palestine conflict there is one thing that is true no matter how you look at it: by searching the “middle ground” in every single conflict in its pursue to maintain pragmatism and avoid the overextension that the USSR suffered, Chinese external policy has almost reached the point of toothlessness, and it’s getting pretty exhausting when the situation that is going on right now is a genocide and the IMCWP is already calling together for the cease of the occupation of Palestine. And while we don’t know what the USSR would have done (and it is useless to ponder about it), the truth is that Soviet external policy in general, despite its excesses and flaws, has to this day done more for communism and for the workers of the world than China ever aims to.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Exactly. But the problem is that zionism isn’t going to be addressed and if the Palestinian state is recognized it will likley not be properly supported, which will create neocolonial relations. Colonial relations develop this way routinely. So it must be asked, who is going to deal with zionism and when?
The two state solution per se isn’t the problem, nor is a plan for phases of decolonization. Rather it is the asymmetric power being tilted to the zionists largely because of decades of international and US support. The fallacy we risk in seeing this in stages is that we imagine an ideal transition despite history showing how quickly it can just develop into neocolonialism with all options exhausted. The occupiers will inevitably be back in control of Palestine with new justifications and the international community will support it yet again.
We can’t “undo” history, but we absolutely can and must undo settler-colonial relations and structures for a two state solution to even be tenable. But at that point, what really is the point of sticking to a two state solution? Other solutions may present themselves as these toxic relations are excised.
Ultimately, it not our decision what is done with those who occupy Palestinian land but it is worth noting that expelling settlers is no more a genocide than any other form of decolonization is(nt). Framing it this way only gives credibility to zionism and makes settlers out to have no agency or self awareness. If we can’t stomach the thought of erasing zionist structures like the state of Isreal and the settler-colonial structures that reproduce it, then we should exit the discussion altogether.
Hamas supports a temporary truce along the 1967 borders
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
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.
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.
that quote doesn’t state whether it’s a permanent solution or a temporary one, only that he believes it would establish some kind of peace (again, no duration specified); how you interpret it depends on your view of the CPC, and I’m inclined to believe that they’re highly competent and geopolitically informed
Talking about a temporary two state solution is the same as going back to the pre October 7th status quo
no, it would return part of the occupied territories to the Palestinians, leaving them in a better position for the inevitable conflict to dismantle “Israel”
This is identical to the Soviet position. It is meant to be as inoffensive, pragmatic, and status-quo supporting as possible as to not cause conflict.
Palestine is not a national interest of China, and it’s leadership could care less about it, so why would they risk aggravating the situation for little to no gain?
Why are you assuming that the CPC leadership doesn’t care about Palestine? If they were to suddenly demand the dismantling of “Israel”, the risk of a third world war would likely increase significantly
Because China has laid their foreign policy positions bare and have stood by them for over a decade at this point. A core tenant of that policy is a primary focus on local security, and a strong non-interference policy.
Further, directly supporting Palestine offers no real benefit to China and its policy goals, and it would be needlessly poking a hornets nest for little to nothing in return.
not directly intervening or completely denouncing “Israel” doesn’t imply that they don’t care about Palestine
True, but that is irrelevant to the grand scheme of things. Whether or not Xi and the CPC leadership have different opinions, is neither important or even possible for us to know. All we can go off of is the policy position, and that policy position has been cold, calculating, and pragmatic. China will fulfill its own self interests first, and whether or not Xi finds it regrettable or wishes to support Palestine, Chinese leadership has little reason to care for the current conflict and the plight of Palestinians. They have bigger fish to fry, and this current stance is very much in line with the position they have taken for years on a myriad of conflicts.
yes, they have to prioritize their own safety; my point is that that claiming that they don’t care is likely untrue, and it plays into the stereotype of communist leaders as ruthless or uncaring
Of course, and I hope it didn’t come across as me saying that the CPC don’t care out of some cold ruthlessness, but more so in the sense that they “don’t care” because not only does the event not involve them, but also because they cannot preform any meaningful action without destabilizing their position.
that’s fair enough
There’s no pragmatic benefit to supporting Palestine, hence the current position, but ideologically the CPC has been pretty pro-palestine since at least the Mao-era. Also domestic opinion in China right now is definitely far more pro-palestine than the west.
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).
I second Florida.
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.
It’s certainly the most hilarious and poetically just scenario, though. I support
Naw Florida is for that Republic of New Afrika 🙅🏿♂️
X to doubt
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
The guy is rejecting fascism not Jewish people, don’t be mean, lol
Yeah, I understood that but wrote the comment in a hurry and didn’t realize at that moment how aggressive it came off
I just don’t want my region to become the new Gaza, nothing against Jewish people, just against being bombed by a fascist state.
That came off way too aggressive, I meant to just point out a historical parallel, sorry about that
China’s foreign policy hasn’t really been the best. They mostly avoid doing anything super cool outside their country.
