GenZedong

4302 readers

51 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

105

Israel-Gaza war: only a two-state solution can bring real peace, China president says in first public speech on conflict (www.scmp.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Um, I am not sure how I feel about this. Why would Xi support a two-state solution? Isn't it more justified to have a one-state solution and return all of the land to the Palestinians? Won't a two-state solution eventually lead us back to another genocide? This feels off. I did not expect Xi to make such a statement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (6 children)

China's position is understandable and unsurprising, yet still disappointing. In regards to their foreign policy, they are still very far away of being able to fill the shoes of the Soviet Union.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The USSR from the early 70s until its collapse basicaly held a pro-palestine 2 state solution position. WHat makes you think even if they survived they would have had a noticably better position than China's

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is what makes me think so.

Perhaps the USSR wouldn't have a noticeably better position than China nowadays. Perhaps the USSR would be a nordic-like social democracy too, since it's been 30 years since it fell and at this time we can imagine anything if we engage in the waste of time that is alt-history.

But if you focus away from the Israel-Palestine conflict there is one thing that is true no matter how you look at it: by searching the "middle ground" in every single conflict in its pursue to maintain pragmatism and avoid the overextension that the USSR suffered, Chinese external policy has almost reached the point of toothlessness, and it's getting pretty exhausting when the situation that is going on right now is a genocide and the IMCWP is already calling together for the cease of the occupation of Palestine. And while we don't know what the USSR would have done (and it is useless to ponder about it), the truth is that Soviet external policy in general, despite its excesses and flaws, has to this day done more for communism and for the workers of the world than China ever aims to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

load more comments (4 replies)