Because it’s a realistic solution a country can be in favour of. It doesn’t matter how much we’d love for the Zionist entity to stop existing, we must not commit ultra-leftism mistakes and expect that a country tries to accomplish an objective that cannot be met.
The Zionist entity cannot continue to exist if Palestine is to prosper or even survive, the two-state solution is untenable at this point to many marxist Palestinians and marks an error in China’s stated foreign policy in so far in that it allows the settler colonial state to continue existing. Legit the population needs a military defeat and reeducation, a two state solution would only continue the oppression unless it also took the form of a massive reducation campaign of “israelis” but even then you have an apartheid ethnostate that would require such major reconstruction I don’t see any good reason to not expect the just and true end of this conflict as a liberated palestine and the fascist force of zionism defeated.
Just want to make sure we aren’t considering Rashida Tlaib ultra-left for recognizing as many Palestinians do the two state solution as a normalization tactic and not a material end of the conflict in anyway.
The Zionist entity cannot exist alongside a Palestinian state. If a “two-state solution” with a sovereign Palestine actually gets implemented the Zionist entity will collapse. The Zionist project is predicated on continual territorial and settlement expansion. Once this becomes impossible and settlements on the territory of the Palestinian state even have to be dismantled there will be a mass exodus of settlers back to Europe/the US and the Zionist settler-colonial project will implode, as they will have failed to secure the Lebensraum that this fascist project requires.
The leaders of the entity know this and now they openly state that even just failing to pacify Gaza would spell the end of their state. This has an element of hyperbolic fearmongering but it is not far from the truth. A defeat in a major conflict that threatens to permanently render the territory of the entity itself unsafe for settlers, as well as a failure to re-establish deterrence through military dominance over its neighbors is the beginning of the end for them. If you have been paying attention you will have noticed that this is exactly the long term strategy of suffocation/attrition/death-by-a-thousand-cuts that the axis of resistance has been implementing.
China adopting a serious “two-state” policy (and actually meaning it, not just stringing the Palestinians along like the collective West does) is equivalent to them pushing for the collapse of the Zionist entity, but it also allows them to maintain an appearance in international diplomacy as a reasonable and unbiased party, which is essential to their central role as the engine for the rise of the global south and the emergence of a “multipolar world” (and that phrase itself is a euphemism that just means demise of western global hegemony).
This does not mean that we as revolutionaries should also adopt such a position, on the contrary. We are not bound by the same diplomatic constraints and strategic considerations that a state power like China is, and moreover we have a different function to fulfill. We should continue to loudly advocate for the complete liberation and decolonization of Palestine from the river to the sea, and more importantly the divestment and cessation of support to the Zionist entity by our own states. Not just because that is morally right but because that is also the strategically correct approach, as this additional pressure works in tandem with the axis of resistance as well as with China’s diplomacy.
And the PFLP promotes a one-state solution? I’m arguing against ideologically supporting a two state solution, even if the professed position of Hamas may have a strategical purpose. There’s no material basis for assuming any agreement between the two would lead to the fascist settler colonial state to not be, well, what it is and has always been. The struggle will continue until from the river to the sea Palestine is free.
I think the main idea is that the colonial state is going to wither away on its own because zionists are already leaving due to how unsafe it is for them to be there, and by the time a two state solution would be implemented, this will have already reached a point where those people will not return and anyone like them who remains will want to leave even more because they have had their colonial project taken away. This will lead to an inevitable one state for Palestine because all the euros will flee and Palestine will have a majority and keep gaining power in the area, while the colony is fully weakened, loses a lot of population, and by then maybe even a lot of external funding.
China having this position makes sense because they are trying to be taken seriously as a mediator and the two state solution is the closest thing to a good deal for Palestinians that is actually being considered at the moment, but the average communist position should absolutely be an end to the zionist state entirely. If China adopted a one state policy in favor of Palestine, they wouldn’t be included in any serious negotiating because that is obviously not something one of the parties in the negotiation wants to accept at the moment.
I emphasize professed because, and I think HBs forget this sometimes, that there are situations where it makes sense to ask for less than what you ultimately want, and presumably Hamas sees a two-state solution as an avenue to ultimately reach a one-state solution. That would also be very much the type of thinking China is inclined towards, along with it being diplomatically a little absurd to take a position significantly more extreme than the dominant faction you are supporting (e.g. calling for the complete dissolution of Israel when Hamas, though it would like that, is not insisting on it in any immediate context).
This is a little bit like how China wants to maintain the status quo with Taiwan because it views the status quo, with its own ascendant power and the decline of US influence, as ending in a unified China.
If you want epic based takes, go to the DPRK press releases. They can afford to say anything they want about countries outside of East Asia because – and they are as aware of this as anyone – what they say on questions like Israel/Palestine matters about as much as what a bunch of dweebs on the internet say, since they are successfully forbade from having normal diplomatic relations with basically any country other than China and Russia.
Oh yeah, I guess you’re right. I remember when we had a two state solution with the Confederacy and Union states, that was the most realistic solution to slavery. One group is free and the other left in a perpetual state of “realism”
I think the real reason is because Palestine is too far away from China, unlike Korea, Vietnam and CambodiaMyanmar who are neighbours. But then again, China still has diplomatic relations with both North and South Korea, and couldn’t do much about their separated status even after helping Korea during the Korean War in the 1950s.
I feel like this speaks to China’s policy of complicity with the capitalist system in ways that allows China to thrive and eventually lead the world into communism - if they just sent the people’s liberation army to help out Hamas the west would probably start WW3 right then and there. That said, it can be genuinely disturbing and worthy of criticism when we say the ends justify the means in any case, especially when we have inspiring quotes from Mao like this:
"The People’s Liberation Army is always a fighting force. Even after countrywide victory, our army will remain a fighting force during the historical period in which classes have not been abolished in our country and the imperialist system still exists in the world. On this point, there should be no misunderstanding or wavering. "
Can you please elaborate a bit more on this? I am confused on how its distance from China affect this decision. Do you mean that if Palestine was closer to China, China would help them militarily to achieve the 1 state?
China sent troops to help North Korea during the Korean War, and sent military aid to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. It also helped mediate a ceasefire between various forces in Myanmar just this January.
So yes, if Palestine was at China’s borders, things would be much different, but in that situation there would probably be another “Palestine” under imperialist-zionist invasion that is out of China’s reach.
So if they would push for 1 state solution in the case of Palestine due to proximity because they would be able to do more, in which sense would they help achieve the abolishment of Israel if they wouldn’t deploy its troops against the Zionist apartheid state?
I’m only talking about a hypothetical situation based on my own opinion, there is no point discussing it any further. Just look at Korea, China maintains relations with both North and South even though both sides want to reunify with the other side.
China supports a 2 state solution? Why?
Because it’s a realistic solution a country can be in favour of. It doesn’t matter how much we’d love for the Zionist entity to stop existing, we must not commit ultra-leftism mistakes and expect that a country tries to accomplish an objective that cannot be met.
The Zionist entity cannot continue to exist if Palestine is to prosper or even survive, the two-state solution is untenable at this point to many marxist Palestinians and marks an error in China’s stated foreign policy in so far in that it allows the settler colonial state to continue existing. Legit the population needs a military defeat and reeducation, a two state solution would only continue the oppression unless it also took the form of a massive reducation campaign of “israelis” but even then you have an apartheid ethnostate that would require such major reconstruction I don’t see any good reason to not expect the just and true end of this conflict as a liberated palestine and the fascist force of zionism defeated.
Just want to make sure we aren’t considering Rashida Tlaib ultra-left for recognizing as many Palestinians do the two state solution as a normalization tactic and not a material end of the conflict in anyway.
The Zionist entity cannot exist alongside a Palestinian state. If a “two-state solution” with a sovereign Palestine actually gets implemented the Zionist entity will collapse. The Zionist project is predicated on continual territorial and settlement expansion. Once this becomes impossible and settlements on the territory of the Palestinian state even have to be dismantled there will be a mass exodus of settlers back to Europe/the US and the Zionist settler-colonial project will implode, as they will have failed to secure the Lebensraum that this fascist project requires.
The leaders of the entity know this and now they openly state that even just failing to pacify Gaza would spell the end of their state. This has an element of hyperbolic fearmongering but it is not far from the truth. A defeat in a major conflict that threatens to permanently render the territory of the entity itself unsafe for settlers, as well as a failure to re-establish deterrence through military dominance over its neighbors is the beginning of the end for them. If you have been paying attention you will have noticed that this is exactly the long term strategy of suffocation/attrition/death-by-a-thousand-cuts that the axis of resistance has been implementing.
China adopting a serious “two-state” policy (and actually meaning it, not just stringing the Palestinians along like the collective West does) is equivalent to them pushing for the collapse of the Zionist entity, but it also allows them to maintain an appearance in international diplomacy as a reasonable and unbiased party, which is essential to their central role as the engine for the rise of the global south and the emergence of a “multipolar world” (and that phrase itself is a euphemism that just means demise of western global hegemony).
This does not mean that we as revolutionaries should also adopt such a position, on the contrary. We are not bound by the same diplomatic constraints and strategic considerations that a state power like China is, and moreover we have a different function to fulfill. We should continue to loudly advocate for the complete liberation and decolonization of Palestine from the river to the sea, and more importantly the divestment and cessation of support to the Zionist entity by our own states. Not just because that is morally right but because that is also the strategically correct approach, as this additional pressure works in tandem with the axis of resistance as well as with China’s diplomacy.
Very well said
The best reasoning for a two state solution that I’ve heard 👍
based
Excellent writeup, comrade.
I recommend also reading what these two comrades have written:
https://hexbear.net/comment/4969553 https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/4369459
They did a very good job of saying more or less what i was trying to express, except perhaps a bit more elegantly and succinctly.
Literally Hamas itself supports (as its professed position) a two state solution
And the PFLP promotes a one-state solution? I’m arguing against ideologically supporting a two state solution, even if the professed position of Hamas may have a strategical purpose. There’s no material basis for assuming any agreement between the two would lead to the fascist settler colonial state to not be, well, what it is and has always been. The struggle will continue until from the river to the sea Palestine is free.
I think the main idea is that the colonial state is going to wither away on its own because zionists are already leaving due to how unsafe it is for them to be there, and by the time a two state solution would be implemented, this will have already reached a point where those people will not return and anyone like them who remains will want to leave even more because they have had their colonial project taken away. This will lead to an inevitable one state for Palestine because all the euros will flee and Palestine will have a majority and keep gaining power in the area, while the colony is fully weakened, loses a lot of population, and by then maybe even a lot of external funding.
China having this position makes sense because they are trying to be taken seriously as a mediator and the two state solution is the closest thing to a good deal for Palestinians that is actually being considered at the moment, but the average communist position should absolutely be an end to the zionist state entirely. If China adopted a one state policy in favor of Palestine, they wouldn’t be included in any serious negotiating because that is obviously not something one of the parties in the negotiation wants to accept at the moment.
Source please
Here’s an example: https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438
I emphasize professed because, and I think HBs forget this sometimes, that there are situations where it makes sense to ask for less than what you ultimately want, and presumably Hamas sees a two-state solution as an avenue to ultimately reach a one-state solution. That would also be very much the type of thinking China is inclined towards, along with it being diplomatically a little absurd to take a position significantly more extreme than the dominant faction you are supporting (e.g. calling for the complete dissolution of Israel when Hamas, though it would like that, is not insisting on it in any immediate context).
This is a little bit like how China wants to maintain the status quo with Taiwan because it views the status quo, with its own ascendant power and the decline of US influence, as ending in a unified China.
If you want epic based takes, go to the DPRK press releases. They can afford to say anything they want about countries outside of East Asia because – and they are as aware of this as anyone – what they say on questions like Israel/Palestine matters about as much as what a bunch of dweebs on the internet say, since they are successfully forbade from having normal diplomatic relations with basically any country other than China and Russia.
Realistic solution?
Oh yeah, I guess you’re right. I remember when we had a two state solution with the Confederacy and Union states, that was the most realistic solution to slavery. One group is free and the other left in a perpetual state of “realism”
Decolonization is possible
This is also Hamas’s official position just so you know
Do you have the source ?
It’s not quite a two state solution, but the revised Hamas charter clearly states that the current goal is to return to the 1967 borders:
The final goal is from the river to the sea, but at the present, this is Hamas’s view.
deleted by creator
I think the real reason is because Palestine is too far away from China, unlike Korea, Vietnam and
CambodiaMyanmar who are neighbours. But then again, China still has diplomatic relations with both North and South Korea, and couldn’t do much about their separated status even after helping Korea during the Korean War in the 1950s.I feel like this speaks to China’s policy of complicity with the capitalist system in ways that allows China to thrive and eventually lead the world into communism - if they just sent the people’s liberation army to help out Hamas the west would probably start WW3 right then and there. That said, it can be genuinely disturbing and worthy of criticism when we say the ends justify the means in any case, especially when we have inspiring quotes from Mao like this:
"The People’s Liberation Army is always a fighting force. Even after countrywide victory, our army will remain a fighting force during the historical period in which classes have not been abolished in our country and the imperialist system still exists in the world. On this point, there should be no misunderstanding or wavering. "
Can you please elaborate a bit more on this? I am confused on how its distance from China affect this decision. Do you mean that if Palestine was closer to China, China would help them militarily to achieve the 1 state?
China sent troops to help North Korea during the Korean War, and sent military aid to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. It also helped mediate a ceasefire between various forces in Myanmar just this January.
So yes, if Palestine was at China’s borders, things would be much different, but in that situation there would probably be another “Palestine” under imperialist-zionist invasion that is out of China’s reach.
Do you think that China would still send troops today with their policy of non-interference?
China didn’t send troops to Myanmar, so the only place it would send troops to is Taiwan province in the case of forceful reunification.
So if they would push for 1 state solution in the case of Palestine due to proximity because they would be able to do more, in which sense would they help achieve the abolishment of Israel if they wouldn’t deploy its troops against the Zionist apartheid state?
I’m only talking about a hypothetical situation based on my own opinion, there is no point discussing it any further. Just look at Korea, China maintains relations with both North and South even though both sides want to reunify with the other side.
What are you implying