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.

  • geikei [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.