- Chinese diplomat’s comments at ICJ appear to endorse armed struggle against Israel in what analyst calls an ‘unanticipated shift’ in stance
- However, others say comparisons between speech at World Court and Mao-era rhetoric are overstated, noting Beijing still favours a two-state solution
Shawamreh said Beijing’s early response to the war in Gaza emphasised non-partisan condemnation of “all violence” – a position Israel criticised as unclear and ambiguous –
Alright then let’s be clear FREE PALESTINE 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸
It was unclear and ambiguous because it didn’t say explicitly that Israel should have a monopoly on violence. Also anti-semitic, probably.
The USSR would’ve simply directly funded and/or militarily supported Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. And they did do so with with the PFLP until the USSR was overthrown.
Though ig two superpowers militarily supporting opposide sides has the risk of just turning the place into a warzone like what happened with Afghanistan.
Though ig two superpowers militarily supporting opposide sides has the risk of just turning the place into a warzone like what happened with Afghanistan.
Honestly a warzone is better that what’s happening now.
I feel like this is exactly what’s happening. China isn’t jumping in because their pro-palenstine. Theyre jumping in because they’re anti US. This will only drag on and worsen the conflict as it becomes one giant proxy war.
Mao-era rhetoric
China, Iran and Russia concluded a joint maritime exercise in the Gulf of Oman last Friday.
I wonder what language they communicate in.
The only one Netanyahu understands
