Note the “but” highlighted above (“every country has the right to self-defence, but…”). Genius FM Wang Yi warns us.
As if Israel has not been ensuring exactly that — operating according to international law — before the invasion of northern Gaza.
By the way, “abiding by international law” does not mean a country at war is obliged to supply the water and electricity to an enemy bent on its slaughter. Not to mention that Israel supplies only 10% of Gaza water. And that there is water and electricity in the south to which northern Gazans have been directed — with guaranteed safety by the IDF — but which Hamas is stopping happening because to them the more civilians killed the better.
Hamas “health authorities” still being trusted for figures above, despite their outright lies on the hospital “bombing”.
Oh… and the “two state resolution”! Gee! Hadn’t thought of that!
Only that it’s been offered to the Palestinians and rebuffed by the Palestinians in 1938, 1947, 1967, 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2008.
What, please tell us, China, is different now?
The answer is: Precisely nothing. Indeed Hamas is more dug in than ever on the “Three Nos” — no negotiations, no recognition, no peace. And now even the PA on the West Bank, allegedly the moderates, are for “Palestine, free from the river to the sea”, iow, for One State and the consequent liquidation of all Jews. The PA continue to pay lifetime pensions to families of Palestinians who have murdered a Jew in Israel.
These are people Wang thinks Israel can have a “lasting and just peace” with? “Tell him he’s dreamin’…”.
The west must have the guts to put the torch where it must be. On Hamas, AND the Palestinian Authority, to change the “3 Nos”. Until then, no more money to UNWRA, the world’s most deeply corrupt NGO.
The difficulty is obvious: in western countries the pro Palestinian forces are so strong governments will have a hard time resisting them. It’s now fine in London to fly a Palestinian flag, but not the Union Jack. Go figure.
ADDED: By the way, can China name one war in which no actions have “harmed civilians”?
No, I thought not.
