“... following an attack by Hamas last month.” What? “... an attack"?! How about, more correctly: “following an unprovoked massacre of civilians, including babies, women and children, by the terrorist group Hamas”. Hmm?
Wang: “China opposes any forced displacement and forcible transfer...”. (1) This is not done by the IDF. Instead, it warns Gaza civilians that it will bomb a certain area at a certain time. So they have the chance to get out of the way. What happens then, usually, is that Hamas stops the citizens from escaping because it wants the civilian deaths to play out on western media. Which the media then pliantly report. (2) Hypocrisy China, much? They forcible transfer citizens, eg in Xinjiang and Tibet. And -- for a very long time -- have limited the domestic movement of its own citizens.
The “foreign minster” of the Palestinian Authority, Riyad al-Maliki, claims the war is to “eliminate the existence of the Palestinian people...”. No it’s not. (1) Clearly not, because of the measures that that IDF takes to minimise civilian deaths. Measures that go far beyond the requirements under international law and further than any modern army. (2) Hypocrisy PA, much? They, like Hamas, specifically and in writing want the worldwide destruction of the jews. They also pay a lifetime pension to any Muslim that murders Jews in acts of terrorism.
Wang: “China supports the just cause of the Palestinian people to recover their national rights”. (1) There has never, in history, been a “Palestinian state”. So how can they “recover national rights”? (2) Hypocrisy much, China? The national rights of the Tibetans? The Uiguhurs in Xinjiang? They used to be separate national status, more so than ever the “Palestinian people” (who, by the way, were the Jews. It was they who were referred to as “Palestinian”, since Roman times until the 1960s, when Yasser Arafat usurped the term. Until then, what are now “Palestinians” had been Egyptian Arabs, or Syrian Arabs, or Lebanese Arabs, or whatever.)
Wang repeated China’s “call for a two-state solution”. Reminder: people now called Palestinian have refused a two-state solution since 1937. Again in 1938, and 1948, and 1967, and 1999, and 2000 and 2008. All times it’s been the Palestinian side that has refused the two-state solution.
The pressure from the west, and from the likes of China (if they really do believe in the need for a “settlement of the Palestinian issue”) needs to shift the Arab side to negate the Khartoum Resolution of 1967, which gave us the infamous “Three Noes”: No Peace with Israel; No Negotiations with Israel; No recognition of Israel. How on earth can Israel negotiate with that? What basis is "Three Noes" for a two-state solution?
Instead, the narrative must shift: to demanding the Palestinian side negate the Three Noes. That’s difficult, sure, but “difficult" is better than “impossible".
Wang: “... persistent disregard for the rights of the Palestinian people.” Let’s correct that for Minister Wang: “the persistent disregard of the Palestinian people to accept peace; to recognise the rights of Israel to exist and the persistent refusal of the Palestinian people to negotiate with Israel for the equal rights of Jews and Arabs to live together in peace in the region.” (FIFY!)
Something like that. Better than the ongoing nonsense spouted by China’s foreign minister, in cahoots with the “foreign minister” of the “Palestinian Authority”, and by the chatterati in the west. Enough.
PS: not to mention that “Israel has the right to self-defence” and at the same breath calling for a “ceasefire”, are mutually exclusive. There can be no long-term self-defence if there is a ceasefire that allows Hamas to regroup, to lock and reload, to carry out another massacre.
