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.
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.