The United Nations Security Council has continued to face challenges in reaching a consensus on the situation in Gaza. Vetoes from the United States on resolutions calling for a ceasefire on December 9 and 12 led to a more moderate resolution focused on alleviating the humanitarian crisis passing on December 22, with American and Russian abstentions.

Despite the gridlock in the Security Council, diplomatic efforts, notably by Chinese leaders and diplomats, are ongoing through alternate channels. For example, China raised the issue of the war in Gaza within the BRICS on November 21 and hosted a high-profile visit of Arab and Muslim diplomats in Beijing the very same week. Additionally, China issued a position paper summarizing the key points emphasized by Chinese diplomacy during the initial months of the conflict.

With the conflict raging on and the UN Security Council ever more polarized, China has reiterated its calls for an international conference with the purpose of resuming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and establishing an independent Palestinian state.

In this context, this issue of the ChinaMed Observer will delve once again into the Chinese media debate on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this time focusing on recent developments in multilateral diplomacy and exploring how Chinese experts have commented on the temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Gaza in the Context of China’s Multilateral Diplomacy

Chinese diplomats have been actively involved in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly within multilateral platforms. One notable arena is the BRICS, which has significantly expanded this year to include Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Ethiopia. This enlargement, deemed of “epochal significance” by some Chinese voices,[1] has elevated the BRICS to a crucial front through which China aims to influence global discourse.

On November 21, BRICS leaders held an extraordinary joint meeting via video conference on the situation in the Middle East. During this summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated the key points of China’s stance, including how “Palestinian rights have been overlooked”, and that without a “two-state solution” there will be no lasting peace in the Middle East. Xi also called for an “immediate ceasefire” and criticized the Israeli siege on Gaza, denouncing it as “collective punishment” against the people of the Strip.[2] These points appear to be the foundation for the consensus China is trying to build on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This summit also illustrates how China is attempting to leverage multilateral platforms like the BRICS to forge consensus on key international issues and thereby give a stronger voice to Chinese diplomacy. As expressed by Xi Jinping:

“China is looking forward to continue working with BRICS member-states in promoting ceasefires and achieving lasting peace in the Middle East.”[3]

Around the same time of the BRICS leaders video-summit, a delegation of foreign ministers from Arab and Muslim countries arrived in Beijing to discuss de-escalation measures and to seek China’s assistance in mediation.

Wang Jin, a researcher at China’s Northwest University, and Wang Guangda, a professor at Shanghai International Studies University (SISU), underscored the significance of this diplomatic mission, emphasizing how the delegation was composed of high-ranking officials. Naturally, they also argued that the delegation’s choice to visit Beijing first demonstrated the trust these countries have in China, as well as their belief that China understands the “significance of the issue.”[4]

As for the scholarly debate on Chinese engagement in solving the crisis, Associate Researcher Su Xiaohui from the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) said in a television interview that China’s response mirrors the international community’s concern over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the fear that the conflict could escalate into a regional war. She concluded that “a political solution is the only way out”.[5]

On a similar note, Professor Niu Xinchun from the China Institute of Arab Studies at Ningxia University (and formerly the head of the Middle East Studies Institute at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations) said:

“Any sort of one-state solution is unachievable, and the status-quo too is unsustainable. From 2008 until this year five major cross-conflicts erupted, that’s why we say that the status-quo is unsustainable. In this situation, all other solutions will not work, the two-state solution is the only way out.”[6]

China’s peacemaker role: between expectation and reality

The official Chinese response and accompanying commentary both seem to emphasize that China’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only reasonable but is also shared by multiple members of the international community, notably emerging countries. It would seem reasonable to assume that this makes China a prime candidate for brokering a peace deal to this war. Indeed, Wang Jin, together with Zou Zhiqiang, a researcher at Fudan University, believe that there is a tangible expectation from Muslim and Arab countries for China to play a more substantial role in Middle East peacemaking, drawing on the proactive role Beijing played in the reconciliation between Tehran and Arab countries of the Gulf.[7]

That said, Chinese experts are quick to temper expectations regarding the immediate impact of ongoing diplomatic efforts. Some expect short- to medium-term results from the multilateral events China presided over and the efforts of Chinese diplomacy:

“The visit of a joint delegation of foreign ministers from Arab and Islamic countries to China will help to cool down the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”[8]

Still, the majority emphasized that a solution to the conflict will only emerge in the long run, in part due to China consistently representing its stance and its efforts to forge consensus, laying the groundwork for a future settlement.[9] China remains well-positioned to do this because:

“Among the world's major powers, China is one of the few countries that can maintain close communication and engage in mediation dialogue with all parties involved in the Palestinian-Israeli issue, and China always upholds a fair stance and has no selfish motives.”[10]

In particular, Yu Guoqing from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences highlights the significance of the last BRICS summit and Chinese engagement within it for advocating that developing countries and emerging powers should have a stronger say on future peace-settlements (including regarding the Palestinian issue), especially because the US has proved once again to have a “biased” approach.[11]

In addition to its efforts within the BRICS framework, Chinese diplomacy addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the United Nations as well. On November 30, a day after a UN Security Council summit in New York presided by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, a position paper was issued by China, calling for a “comprehensive and lasting” settlement. The document outlines five major points (paraphrased below):[12]

1. UN Resolution 2712 should be promptly implemented to de-escalate the conflict.
2. Demands contained in relevant UN Security Council resolutions should be met to protect Palestinian civilians in accordance with humanitarian law.
3. More humanitarian assistance from the international community is needed and preparation to rebuild Gaza should be initiated.
4. The UN Security Council should promote diplomatic mediation with the inclusion of regional organizations.
5. The UN Security Council should work to restore a “two-state solution,” with Palestine enjoying “full sovereignty” based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. The UN Security Council should devise a concrete roadmap to achieve this.

Professor Liu Zhongmin from SISU argues that the position paper helped cement the two-state solution as the foundation of a possible future solution. He stated that:

“[The position paper] emphasizes the importance of returning the Palestinian-Israeli issue to the track of the United Nations, establishing authoritative international mechanisms, and adhering to the “two-state solution.”[13]

On January 14, Wang Yi, held talks with the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, Ahmed Aboul Gheit. Following an in-depth exchange of views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a joint statement was issued, calling for an “immediate, comprehensive and lasting ceasefire” and urging “influential countries” to “take an objective, impartial, and constructive approach” for de-escalation.

The joint statement, while reiterating the key points of the Chinese position paper, features two novelties. Firstly, it underscores that “any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of Palestine should be based on the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine” (barenzhiba 巴人治巴). Secondly, based on this principle, a peace conference should be convened to establish an independent Palestinian state. The statement reads:

“Both sides call for the convening as soon as possible of an international peace conference with broad participation. It should reflect an international mandate, promote the formulation of a binding road map, implement the two-state solution in accordance with a specific timetable and, on that basis, promote the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.”[14]

Peace through force or peace at the negotiating table?

The question on how to achieve peace remains a subject of debate among Chinese scholars. While Wang Guangda believes that the exchange of prisoners and the temporary ceasefire has “established a certain level of trust”, Niu Xinchun disagrees, arguing that “ceasefire and peace agreement are two completely distinct matters”.[15]

Tsinghua University’s She Gangzheng supports Niu’s perspective, positing that Israel is bent on pursuing a military solution. She and Niu also both emphasize that Tel Aviv’s actions run counter to the international community’s wish for a diplomatic solution.[16] As expressed by Niu Xinchun:

“The temporary ceasefire was only possible because of the exchange of prisoners. The idea of a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire is opposed by every facet of Israeli society. As for international actors, the US and Europe reject the idea, while Third World countries and BRICS members support it. […] A lasting ceasefire can only be achieved by international organizations doubling their efforts on reaching a consensus.”[17]

Director of the Department for European Studies at CIIS, Professor Cui Hongjian, stated that a ceasefire agreement would be in and of itself very difficult to reach because of the necessity of mutual security guarantees.[18]

The bottom line is drawn by Cui and Niu Xinchun, who state that although international (including US) pressure on Israel is increasing, neither side has fundamentally changed or achieved their main goals, therefore:

“both Hamas and Israel are preparing for an even larger-scale round of the conflict.”[19]

Conclusion

The situation in Gaza increasingly seems a litmus test for Chinese diplomacy. China's involvement in minilateral settings appears to serve as a tool for establishing common ground with influential actors. Domestically, Chinese commentators mention the growing expectation within the international community for China to play a greater role in peace settlements, aligning with its posturing as a major power.

While Chinese scholars generally agree on the importance of diplomatic platforms and of building consensus, for the time being a permanent ceasefire seems a distant reality, let alone a peace process. They largely attribute this to the unwillingness of the involved parties, who, despite international pressure, are unwilling to abandon a military solution and start peace negotiations.

Notably, but unsurprisingly, Chinese analysts place more blame on the Israeli side rather than on Hamas, at least officially. However, not all experts agree on this issue. For example, in a television interview [20] that sparked some outrage among the Chinese public, Yin Gang, a senior scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, casted doubt on the reliability of Hamas-affiliated sources (including data on civilian casualties) and identified Hamas as the primary obstacle to Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation.[21]

Looking back at our earlier summary of the Chinese debate on the conflict, it is now evident that those pessimistic voices expecting the conflict to persist for more than several weeks have been proven correct.

Ádám KOI is Research Fellow at the ChinaMed Project. He is a PhD candidate in Sinology at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. His primary areas of research are China's governance and administrative system, and China’s foreign policy and economic strategy.