not a “single edgy tweet”, I linked 4 in the previous post, and that was over a multi-day period of him doubling down. there’s other examples, but I’m not sure that listing every example of him being shitty would be enough for you either.

he’s an entertainer with obviously shitty opinions about trans people and thus people aren’t interested in his political demagoguing.

the common consensus from what I’ve seen is that graham planter is a cryptofash, regardless of what chapo says about him. I don’t watch them so I have no idea what they’ve even said about him. Here’s what I’ve said about him: blackwater Nazi tattoo guy sucks and I don’t see a reason to believe a word he says

you keep linking bad empanada videos, I suggest branching out to other information sources

Thanks, that’s better. I see condemnation of the horrible genocidal plan, yes, but no requests to China and Russia to veto it, which leads back to my core point: China’s foreign policy relies on respecting the sovereignty of states, not groups within states. When groups in MENA like Algeria back the plan, the PA backs the plan, and the US threatens to heighten the genocide if the deal isn’t backed, then China’s hand is extremely limited. Vetoing means the US gets a free excuse to cancel the already farcical ceasefire and ramp up the genocide in order to carry out the plan anyways.

China and Russia breaking precedent and picking Hamas over the PA opens the door to the US backing seperatist groups in Taiwan in UNSC resolutions, ramp up the trade war, and more. Vetoing the plan wouldn’t meaningfully stop the plan, it would give free excuses to the US to abolish the already farcical “ceasefire,” which was their open threat at the table prior to voting. China and Russia condemning the plan, drafting an alternate resolution, and trying their best to appease both Hamas and the PA led them to abstention.

Following the resolution, I have yet to see resistance groups specifically call out China and Russia, only condemning the UNSC plan and resolution. People highlighting the 2 that abstained over the dozen that voted gleefully for the plan and the countries that plan on actively participating and facilitating it are missing the core of the issue, the US Empire, Israel, and Europe.

For starters, I appreciate that you at least are responding to me. I hope you understand that more than most, I try to maintain good-faith. I know that your intentions are in the right place, which is why I am trying to reach out rather than just sit out.

You were given numerous lengthy responses, and then you answered them with quips and tweets. That’s what got you labeled a wrecker more than someone legitimately criticizing China’s position. I understand that you weren’t trying to troll, but at the same time I understand why they recieved it that way, many people met your energy with lengthy comments explaining their positions and you didn’t respond in kind.

1. Regarding the dropsite tweet, it looks like deceptichum found a more direct source. It’s machine translated though. I responded to it there, it seems the interviewer was trying to directly ask if Hamas asked Russia and China to veto, while Hamdan responded in a manner that almost dodges that point, instead directly calling for a better resolution (which China and Russia are drafting) as well as prevention of a return to the all-out genocide as compared to the “slower” genocide of the post-“ceasefire” resolution.

2. This isn’t the case, though. China released explanations for their abstention here. They aren’t endorsing the resolution, they maintain that it’s an awful resolution and that a better alternative needs to be drafted, per the requests of resistance groups. The PRC’s stance has always been for factional unity within the PLO. Here’s an excerpt from the above link:

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned many issues in the draft resolution and China’s major concerns about it, considering the fragile and severe situation in Gaza, the imperative of maintaining the ceasefire, and the positions of the regional countries and Palestine, China abstained in the vote. It must also be noted that our concerns and worries remain. The Security Council must maintain close attention to the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian question. The Palestinian question lies at the heart of the Middle East issues. It is a matter about international equity and justice. The international community must steadfastly advance the two-State solution and pursue the political settlement of the Palestinian question. It means establishing an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, therefore realizing the Palestinian people’s right to statehood, survival. and return. China has always firmly supported the just cause of the Palestinian people in restoring their legitimate national rights. We stand ready to work with the international community to make unremitting efforts for a comprehensive, just, and lasting solution to the Palestinian question.

Considering the US threatened to escalate if the resolution was vetoed, and that China and Russia have no way to oppose it millitarily in the region, China picked abstention, consistent with their historical stance of siding with the PLO and opting for stability over returning to the heights of the war. Full sovereignty includes armament.

The UN isn’t seen as toothless because of how votes go and are vetod, the UN is toothless because the resolutions do not matter. Words on paper mean nothing to the genocidal US Empire, that’s why the ceasefire is already being violated. What matters is economic and millitary might, and in this instance the US and the comprador countries have full supremacy over the region.

I’m well aware of the ML stance on imperialism. Russia and China are not imperializing Palestine. Their passive anti-imperialism can absolutely be critiqued. I personally would want China to be more directly interventionist in Palestine. I understand them being wary after regular fuck ups in the latter 20th century, and I understand the risks, you yourself mentioned that you understand China not wanting trade to be used against them.

My driving point is that there is a difference between disappointment with and critique of China, and completely flipping around and equating them to the actual perpetrators of colonization. The ones who directly endorsed the plan were the 13 members who voted for it, and the ones responsible for the colonization are the UK, France, Israel, Germany, the US, Italy, every country directly involved. This misattribution gives ammo to liberals that attack China as imperialist anyways, weakening the ability for China to succeed in establishing Palestinian statehood with which they can use not as a permanent two state solution, but as a lever to pull in supporting the Palestinian cause.