Lemmygrad is a collection of Marxist communities, for memes, learning, news, discussion, media, or anything you like.
There’s a big chance that your instance blocks Lemmygrad, so the best way to interact with the community is either joining there or creating an account on an instance that doesn’t blocks us. You can check this on the instaces section of your instance. This is what it looks like for Lemmy, but you can basically add /instances to the URL and it will take you there.
Due to the huge influx of users after the Reddit debacle Lemmygrad got a lot of account requests so it takes time for approval, be patient.
China and Russia presented their alternative plan 2 days (iirc) before they passed the US resolution. The expectation was that they would veto the US resolution. With plenty of morally justifiable reasons, like the absence of a Palestinian state, they could easily present their own resolution as an alternative and win the moral highground.
They didn’t. They passed the US resolution instead.
You aren’t being strawmanned in any way.
Yes and no, the entire plan was given 2 weeks before the vote, and China and Russia rushed to give an alternative. I’ve seen nowhere that the expectation was to veto, just to not endorse the plan, which neither country did. Back before the Korean war, the Soviet Union boycotted the UNSC decision to invade Korea, but we all know that wasn’t an endorsement either. I suggest you read China’s statement, if you haven’t already.
As for your strawmanning of me, you absolutely are.
China did not endorse the plan to disarm the resistance. On the contrary, we know that will never happen anyways.
I’m not a Chinese nationalist, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. I have criticized China, I even said I would rather they take a more millitant stance in anti-imperialism rather than continue their present strategy. I think they are more than strong enough to do so in a way that the soviet union wasn’t sustainably.
I never once asked “why don’t “arabs” do armed uprisings against their oppressors.” I’m fully aware of the resistance’s stance towards the PA/PLO, and I’m also aware that China was pivotal in the 2024 Beijing Declaration that resulted in the following:
Side note: Algeria broke this by endorsing the plan.
China did not endorse the plan, knows that the resistance will never disarm, and was caught between the PLO’s endorsement of the plan and the resistances opposition to it. They abstained, and committed to working to establish Palestinian statehood, including the right to remain armed.
As I said, I would have rather them veto it anyways, but your framing of them as endorsing the plan and making a full pivot into participation in TRUST is what I take issue with. I wish China was doing more, but at the same time I’m not going to pretend they’re the same as the US here.
I never once told you to read, and you never once explained how the resolution being veto’d would stop it. I already told you that I’d rather China veto’d it, but you care more about arguing online than anything else.
More unrelated strawman arguments.
I said I’d rather China veto’d
I explained that China is meaningfully supporting, like reconciling Fatah and Hamas
I explained that the PRC’s non-interventionist foreign policy is different from the soviet’s, and that generally I prefer the soviet policy
Your point wasn’t that China isn’t doing anything, but that it’s an imperialist country trading Palestinian lives for favors, with no evidence.
Cool.
China is not supporting Israel, nor the plan. They’ve already said they are dedicated to building a Palestinian state and that the current plan doesn’t include that, and they also stated that disarmament is unacceptable.
Wrong on two counts. China is not aiding or supporting the colonization, they just haven’t taken an interventionist approach to stopping it like we would both likely prefer. Either way, this is not imperialism on China’s part. Imperialism is a form of international extraction, the reason the west is imperialist with respect to Palestine is because they need the settler-colonial project as a landlocked aircraft carrier. China doesn’t rely on the same international extraction, nor is it one of the active participants in colonizing Palestine. At worst, it’s insufficient in its actions.
You keep saying I’m using the same logic as Kamala supporters, but here you are saying “it’s beyond obvious” and gesturing to things that don’t have clear connections. This kind of baseless bashing is exactly what liberals do.
I’d appreciate if you answered this directly:
Do you believe China is imperialist, or insufficiently anti-imperialist? Which is it?
I will not respond to anything else this is a massive waste of time.
There’s no difference between abstaining and voting for the resolution. The result is the same.
The result doesn’t matter, though. As you already said, the ceasefire isn’t real, the US Empire will go through with the genocidal settlement plan no matter what the results were. What matters is what China does materially, which has thus far included uniting Hamas and Fatah, establishing ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and presenting an alternative economic bloc to that which relies on Palestinian obliteration. You and I may argue that this is insufficient, but the major difference is that you argue that it’s evidence that China supports the genocide, is imperialist, and therefore must be destroyed, giving liberals ammo to oppose China across the board and uplift the west as a more “moral” alternative.
If you don’t actually think China should be destroyed, and is just not doing enough when it could be doing more, then you should reframe your critique into saying that it isn’t doing enough and that it isn’t sufficiently anti-imperialist. Doing so is far more productive and doesn’t give the liberals chances to “both sides” anything.
Gotcha, you picked an unrelated strawman. I already said I would have rather China veto’d, the fact that you either don’t care enough to find an accurate twitter post or chose not to read my comment reveals your position. You care less about coming to an understanding with people who largely agree with you and more about arguing online.