First of all, I want to say that I am disappointed by the results, but I think your last day or so being a full pivot away from China, calling them imperialist even, is an over-correction that capes for the actual sponsors of and perpetrators of genocide, the US and Europe. I understand trying to hold China to a higher standard, but completely doing a 180 over an abstention at a council that already doesn’t mean anything is wrecker behavior.
There’s 2 major obstacles here. The first is that no UNSC resolution has ever prevented the US Empire from doing what it wants, such as continuing to ship arms to Haiti despite UNSC disapproval. The second is the Palestinian Authority, compradors as they are, backed the plan. The PA isn’t contested by Hamas, and are seen internationally as the authority over Palestine. Had Hamas been legitimized, perhaps China and Russia would have accepted their requests to deny the resolution, but when the PA backs the plan China sides with the PA.
When China was more interventionist in the 20th century, it had notoriously terrible foreign policy. They sided with Cambodia against Vietnam, they sided with the US over the USSR, and even pivted from supporting the DPRK to trying to sacrifice it. The China of today is one that has learnt their lesson and shifted to a policy of non-intervention. China going against the PA and for Hamas, while the morally correct position, would be a reversal of their non-interventionism. This is entirely different from actually arming and aiding in the genocide, and is in no way a full endorsement.
Even the USSR, which was both far more interventionist and far more correct from a foreign policy perspective (in general), generally was careful not to undermine what was seen as legitimate. Hamas has no problem killing traitors, but doesn’t actually contest PA. This is why the PA was invited to the talks in Beijing, alongside the PFLP, Hamas, DFLP, etc, because the resistance still tacitly accepts them.
China nor Russia are not parts of the colonialist task force, which does include Germany, the UK, France, the Nordics, and of course, the US and Israel. Italy offered to send support for the colonial project as well. The US’s plans are to create an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative, called the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). China cannot allow this to succeed, and cannot prevent the US’s plan simply by vetoing them at the UNSC, so they of course must take alternative measures to prevent this from happening.
In short, your total condemnation of China and Russia, equating them to the actual perpetrators of genocide, goes well beyond left critique of inaction by China and Russia and into the territory of feeding ammo to liberals who would support the US Empire and the west in general over multipolarity and anti-imperialism.
The trade IMO is worse than the abstention vote, because the trade is material and the results of UNSC resolutions have never stopped the US Empire from doing what it wants. There’s also the fact that the US threatened “a return to war” if there were any “no” votes:
@Cowbee@geneva_convenience@palestine
“The PA isn’t contested by Hamas” you say. It’s totally false. It’s contested by all the factions, and by the palestinian people. It’ s just Israel’s puppet. Only 10% of palestinians would vote for it.
There’s a difference between voting against them and all-out war. Hamas is not at war with the PA. As much as they are wrong and sellouts, they are also consistently brought to the table in any talks. I agree that they are unpopular, and I agree that vetoing is the more morally correct position, assuming the US wouldn’t make good on their threats to “return to war” in the case of a no vote.
First of all, I want to say that I am disappointed by the results, but I think your last day or so being a full pivot away from China, calling them imperialist even, is an over-correction that capes for the actual sponsors of and perpetrators of genocide, the US and Europe. I understand trying to hold China to a higher standard, but completely doing a 180 over an abstention at a council that already doesn’t mean anything is wrecker behavior.
There’s 2 major obstacles here. The first is that no UNSC resolution has ever prevented the US Empire from doing what it wants, such as continuing to ship arms to Haiti despite UNSC disapproval. The second is the Palestinian Authority, compradors as they are, backed the plan. The PA isn’t contested by Hamas, and are seen internationally as the authority over Palestine. Had Hamas been legitimized, perhaps China and Russia would have accepted their requests to deny the resolution, but when the PA backs the plan China sides with the PA.
When China was more interventionist in the 20th century, it had notoriously terrible foreign policy. They sided with Cambodia against Vietnam, they sided with the US over the USSR, and even pivted from supporting the DPRK to trying to sacrifice it. The China of today is one that has learnt their lesson and shifted to a policy of non-intervention. China going against the PA and for Hamas, while the morally correct position, would be a reversal of their non-interventionism. This is entirely different from actually arming and aiding in the genocide, and is in no way a full endorsement.
Even the USSR, which was both far more interventionist and far more correct from a foreign policy perspective (in general), generally was careful not to undermine what was seen as legitimate. Hamas has no problem killing traitors, but doesn’t actually contest PA. This is why the PA was invited to the talks in Beijing, alongside the PFLP, Hamas, DFLP, etc, because the resistance still tacitly accepts them.
China nor Russia are not parts of the colonialist task force, which does include Germany, the UK, France, the Nordics, and of course, the US and Israel. Italy offered to send support for the colonial project as well. The US’s plans are to create an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative, called the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). China cannot allow this to succeed, and cannot prevent the US’s plan simply by vetoing them at the UNSC, so they of course must take alternative measures to prevent this from happening.
In short, your total condemnation of China and Russia, equating them to the actual perpetrators of genocide, goes well beyond left critique of inaction by China and Russia and into the territory of feeding ammo to liberals who would support the US Empire and the west in general over multipolarity and anti-imperialism.
The trade IMO is worse than the abstention vote, because the trade is material and the results of UNSC resolutions have never stopped the US Empire from doing what it wants. There’s also the fact that the US threatened “a return to war” if there were any “no” votes:
@Cowbee @geneva_convenience @palestine
“The PA isn’t contested by Hamas” you say. It’s totally false. It’s contested by all the factions, and by the palestinian people. It’ s just Israel’s puppet. Only 10% of palestinians would vote for it.
There’s a difference between voting against them and all-out war. Hamas is not at war with the PA. As much as they are wrong and sellouts, they are also consistently brought to the table in any talks. I agree that they are unpopular, and I agree that vetoing is the more morally correct position, assuming the US wouldn’t make good on their threats to “return to war” in the case of a no vote.