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.
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.
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.
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 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 know why he’s doing it, but it doesn’t make the play-acted middle-of-the-road centrism any less infuriating because for fuck’s sake he sounds just like the settlers saying shit like this. If the unthinkable happened and we finally got a war against our oppressors in the West, and somebody started talking about ‘two-state solution’, my blood would boil! The crackerverse would holler otherwise, but the crackerverse would holler anyway. They’re stuck pigs, it’s all they know how to do.
The crackerverse would holler otherwise, but the crackerverse would holler anyway.
This is also true in Israel. Due to the current state of the West Bank, a two-state solution would essentially require partition all over again, an opening of a new instance of the same kind of wound as 1948 constituted.
When the Israeli Jewish settlements were removed from Gaza, there was a huge uproar inside Israel. If the Israeli government did that in the West Bank today, it’d be a huge reversal and they’d have to contend with a very vocal, very armed, right-wing religious extremist faction going absolutely nuts over it.
Alternatively, if the Israeli government proposed to do land swaps instead (which they’d probably want to do since the West Bank is of special religious and historical significance to Jews, much more so than most of the territory the state of Israel now claims for itself), that could mean further mass displacement for Palestinians living in the West Bank, plus the same kind of domestic problem for the Israeli government in whatever territory they would give over to the Palestinians in exchange.
There’s no way to do a two-state solution that doesn’t require mass displacement by force, possibly for both sides. I don’t understand how that inflames things any less than decolonializatlon/reconstruction/reparations to transition to a single multinational state or a confederation with free movement across the whole territory or something like that.
Israeli Jews certainly cry out loudly today if anyone talks about a one state solution, but there would also be a massive outcry from them if steps were taken to actually realize a two-state solution, too.
(If, when they have a hand strong enough to actually meaningfully negotiate with Israel and hold them to account, Palestinians (including the Palestinian diaspora), should choose a ‘two-state solution’, you won’t find me opposing that. But I really struggle to see how that’s possible given current realities on the ground.)
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.
As frustratingly middle of the road as this is, you’ll have to get used to language like this coming from China. They are not necessarily ones to rock the boat. It’s a careful strategy on their part. Some would say they’re playing the long game.
At the very least, they are asking for sovereignty to be restored to the Palestinians, even if its not a total reversal of the colonial agenda. They also at least understand the source of the conflict being the settler state of Israel. No, Israel doesn’t have a right to exist, but if we’re to take that idea to the logical conclusion, neither does the US. And yet, calling for the destruction of America, as delightful as the notion is, is not necessarily something which is in the best interests of the CPC.
Agree.
And When the Palestinians and their allies excise the cancerous entity and create a Palestinian state from the River to the sea, the PRC will recognize it. That’s what matters to me.
