Why do sections of the Western left ignore China’s solidarity with Palestine?

The article below, written for China Square, details China’s historic and current support for the national rights of the Palestinian people, and seeks to understand why elements of the Western left overlook this solidarity.

The article tallies “Beijing’s diplomatic tour de force uniting the 14 largest Palestinian resistance organisations around a declaration and programme of internal reconciliation”; China’s proposals for a ceasefire; its longstanding recognition of the State of Palestine; its recent contribution to the International Court of Justice recognising Palestinians’ right to armed resistance to occupation; and its insistence that governance of Palestine is a matter for the Palestinians themselves.

The article urges people in Palestine solidarity movements in the West to recognise China’s contributions, as opposed to “letting the US and EU elites deprive them of an important ally” and rendering themselves “more vulnerable to the propaganda designed to normalise the next round of horrendous wars driven by Washington, London and NATO, wars that seem to be inescapably coming our way in the Pacific region”.

This article has been translated into English by the author, Friends of Socialist China advisory group member Dirk Nimmegeers.

The fact that some elements of the Western left ignore Chinese solidarity with Palestine may indicate shortcomings in pro-Palestinian movements.

The analysis and statements in debates and meetings on Gaza are generally of good quality. Most panellists belong to organisations (or contribute to media outlets) that courageously go against the tide. Speakers dispel doubts around the term genocide, and convincingly argue that what is happening in Gaza is not “deplorable Israeli disproportionality”, but rather, planned and systematic expulsion. They express anger at the culpability of continued Western support and hypocrisy.

Blind spot

It is therefore disappointing that in debates on both the threat of war in general and on Palestine, there is a deafening silence about China and its principles, positions, proposals and actions. For example, in debates in Belgium this summer, there was a very brief mention of Beijing’s diplomatic tour de force uniting the 14 largest Palestinian resistance organisations around a declaration and programme of internal reconciliation. During a debate on the threat of war, someone shouted from the audience “and what about China?”, and during an event on Palestine, the moderator asked whether the Beijing Declaration could offer any hope. The panel remained silent. One speaker merely stressed that “this had been tried so many times before”. The important step forward of bringing together Fatah, Hamas and 12 others seemed to be shrugged off. It was very clear that if someone else had not started talking about the Beijing Declaration, the panellists themselves would not have mentioned it.

In most Western campaigns against genocide and for a ceasefire in Gaza, China is ignored. It is striking how little is published about China’s peace propositions even in courageous progressive media. It is to be feared that this will continue for some time to come. One can legitimately ask why the leftist and progressive community remains silent on China or refuses to show solidarity with a country that is the target of a multifaceted Western offensive, even if the community is well aware of the risk of the current NATO onslaught turning into an unprecedented global conflict.

Neither Washington nor Beijing?

Here and there we hear the idea that “China simply does not think the Middle East is that important now, and that this might change if there is some advantage to be gained”. A variant of this is the idea that China is now only interfering in the region to gain influence or out of rivalry with the US. These caricatures of a self-interested, neo-colonial or neo-imperialist China are among the many fables that the US and the EU successfully spread through their powerful media; myths that all too often carry an undertone of Sinophobia. In European leftist circles, this leads to an attitude of “neither Washington nor Beijing”. This slogan may sound good to some, but where it ends up is de facto support for advancing NATO offensive and acting as junior partners in the rearguard of the US attack.

What is China actually doing?

Another and more innocuous reason why China is often left out of the picture when it comes to Palestine is that many do not think, or rather know, that China is sincerely and usefully working for the cause of the Palestinians in many ways. Nevertheless, it is doing so.

For example, it is correct and important that China has so far never condemned Hamas’s actions. The importance of this is that it gives other countries, especially in the Global South, the necessary courage and strength to stand up to the US and the EU (as with the anti-Russian sanctions). Another strong signal in that regard is the fact that China is treating Hamas as a serious and important interlocutor. In recent months there have been several contacts between representatives of that resistance movement and Chinese diplomats. Neither the US nor Israel could appreciate this. China’s attitude is more correct than that of Western activists who go on and on distancing themselves from Hamas and repeating that the action of 7 October was a war crime (something that is highly questionable, and about which interesting views were expressed during the recent debate in Belgium).

Beijing seldom or never sides with one of the warring parties in conflicts in the Global South. This is in stark contrast to a tried-and-tested tactic of the West. China’s negotiated peace and reconciliation line is applied by Beijing to internal conflicts in Third World countries, e.g. Palestine. And neither does China provide irresponsible, arbitrary and facile criticism of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, which are still recognised by most countries as official representatives of the Palestinian state.

Beijing’s respect

Chinese diplomacy speaks out in favour of the two-state solution, as do some officially recognised Palestinian organisations. Might that be the reason for ignoring or rejecting Beijing’s actions? What most Palestinians themselves think of certain leaders and of the two-state solution favoured by them does indeed remain an open question. Perhaps views will depend on the concrete and very different situations in which Palestinian refugees or Palestinians living in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank find themselves. In the eyes of some Westerners, the only rational solution is a binational state – a political solution where a single state is formed in which both Israelis and Palestinians live, with equal rights and obligations. This concept contrasts with the famous and internationally advocated two-state solution, which provides for the creation of two separate states for Israelis and Palestinians and has indeed been abused by Washington and Tel Aviv as a kind of mirage, against the Palestinians, or with the ‘no-state solution’ that others espouse. Opinions fluctuate, all we know with certainty is that it will be a tough debate and that we should at least continue to listen to all Palestinians themselves, without giving some groups either all the credit or all the criticism.

The power of unity

Beijing has been making efforts to unite Palestinian groups for months. True, this is yet another attempt, but it looks like it will be one of the most successful and so say those who signed the declaration themselves. Foreign minister Wang Yi made the following remarks about it: “Only when Palestinian factions speak with one voice can that voice of justice be heard loud and clear, and only when they join hands and march forward shoulder to shoulder can they succeed in their national liberation cause, with the ultimate goal of the genuine establishment of an independent state of Palestine in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions.”

Another typical stand of Chinese diplomacy is this: “On the road to reconciliation, China follows the same direction and destination as Arab and Muslim countries.” That resulted in a joint statement on Gaza between China and those countries on 31 May. Useful and important? Some rational observers do seem to think so. A post on Facebook read, among other things: “Literally all of Palestine and Israel’s neighbours signed up: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Plus Türkiye, Qatar, Algeria and Russia. That gives extra weight to the Beijing Declaration. No Western country signed along… Not so long ago, nothing could happen in the Middle East without the US (and sometimes by extension, the EU and other Western allies) being involved. So now we are in a situation where China, Russia, all of Israel’s neighbours and all Palestinians are united for the national liberation cause of Palestine. Hopefully, this will finally lead to results.”

Another gratifying and positive result of the Beijing Declaration is that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have now been offered an escape route from being hostages of the US and Israel. Minister Katz is furious about this, with good reason, and expressed his anger as follows: “Instead of rejecting terrorism, Mahmoud Abbas embraces the murderers and rapists of Hamas, revealing his true face.”

Recognising the Palestinian state

We rejoice that Norway, Ireland and Spain, partly in response to the horror in Gaza, now recognise the Palestinian state. But China was one of the first countries to do so, as early as 20 November 1988. That too is neither mentioned in the corporate media, nor perceived by a lot of Western activists. China took an additional opportunity to respond to the genocide by supporting Algeria’s proposal on 18 April 2024, along with other Security Council members France and Russia, to formally include Palestine in the UN General Assembly. Several times China has spoken out clearly for the Palestinian cause at the UN Security Council. It convened a special council meeting on the Gaza genocide and dedicated a press conference to it at its own National People’s Congress. This has not escaped The Palestine Chronicle‘s notice, unlike our mainstream media’s.

Right to resist (and in what way)

During the abovementioned debate, panellists spoke approvingly of the right to armed resistance where necessary. Why would it be that they not have mentioned that Ma Xinmin, legal adviser to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, supported that right in an official statement (see the verbatim report of the court) at the public hearing of the International Court of Justice in The Hague? Action groups, resistance movements and states struggle in various ways. The United States had been building a ‘New Middle East without Palestine’. They wanted Israel to further its ties with Arab and Muslim countries (the ‘Abraham Accords’) and with India, without considering the Palestinians, to deprive the struggle for a Palestinian state of any relevance. An extremely important action by China is to slowly and diplomatically wean the countries in the region from US and EU influence, for instance by striving for peace and working for rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What the Palestinian resistance achieved on 7 October was to thwart the US plans by force. What China is points in the same direction, but necessarily by means of peaceful diplomacy.

There is even the delusion that China is “doing nothing diplomatically”. However, the perception of Palestinian organisations and Arab media of China and its actions is very different. Palestine’s ambassador to the UN, Mayed Bay, as well as Fatah, Hamas, the Palestinian National Initiative, DFLP, PFLP, and journalists including Ramzy Baroud are full of praise for China’s policies before and after October 7, 2023. It might be worth taking note of the views of these stakeholders. They have found that China adheres to the principle that “on Palestinian matters, ultimately, it is for the Palestinians to decide”.

Upgrading relations with countries in the region or disdaining them?

Of course, it is good to have citizen activists speak out at actions and demonstrations as has become common practice. Unfortunately, organisers turn a blind eye to the support Palestinian political organisations, Arab states, as well as countries like Iran, provide to the Palestinian struggle. In any case, whatever the governments of those countries do, it is better than following or relying on the US or the EU any longer.

China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Fu Cong, has stated that his country is outraged by the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, and strongly condemns it. Fu did so at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on 31 July, called in response to Haniyeh’s assassination (the meeting was called by Russian Federation, which is currently rotating chair of the council, and at the request of Algeria and China). Fu said China is deeply concerned about a worsening of war risks in the region that may arise from this assassination and that of a senior commander of the Hezbollah resistance movement. To no one, except perhaps the US representation, will these statements have come across as just hollow words.

From despair to defiance?

Could China do more? Perhaps, but everyone knows how much and in what various ways China is being targeted and threatened at the moment, and it could be watching its step. However, practice shows that Chinese diplomacy is highly effective, and people would be well advised not to be influenced in any way by Sinophobic condescension.

Pro-Palestine activists and other well-meaning Westerners who are understandably desperate for progress. “How can this second even more terrible Nakba, this atrocity, the genocide be stopped?” “We must put pressure on our governments”. “Let’s hope for the implosion of the Zionist regime”. Certainly none of this is wrong. However, those who show no interest in China’s responses and who reject the solidarity of China’s diplomats are letting the US and EU elites deprive them of an important ally and – something not to be underestimated – will be more vulnerable to the propaganda designed to normalise the next round of horrendous wars driven by Washington, London and NATO, wars that seem to be inescapably coming our way in the Pacific region.