China’s position since the breakout of the recent Israel-Hamas conflict has been somewhat contradictory. Beijing has condemned attacks against civilians but refuses to condemn the party(ies) that inflicted them. It has expressed sympathy to Israel but refused to criticize Hamas. In fact, Hamas is not even mentioned in Chinese government references. On the other hand, the government has expressed sympathy to Palestine, especially the people in Gaza, but has refused to criticize Israel. 

The apparent contradictions mask the truth that, despite its long-term amicable relationship with Israel, Beijing has evidently chosen to side with the Palestinians and the Arab countries. 

In the Chinese view, Washington’s peace plan for the region has conveniently evaded the issue of Palestine’s fate and sowed the seeds of conflict by leaving it out of the process. 

Just like the Ukraine war, where China’s pro-Russia neutrality has solicited broad international criticism, China’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict is not neutral. China’s fundamental criticism of Israel lies in the Israeli refusal to honor the Two-State Solution and its continued occupation of territories against the stipulations of UN Security Council Resolution 242 as the root cause of the conflict. China sees the right-wing, ultra-conservative policy of the Netanyahu government to expand the settlements in the occupied West Bank as the direct catalyst of the current Gaza crisis. In the meantime, China also sees the Palestinians’ anxiety over potentially fading out of the picture with the recent steps towards diplomatic normalization between Israel and key Arab states. In the Chinese view, Washington’s peace plan for the region has conveniently evaded the issue of Palestine’s fate and sowed the seeds of conflict by leaving it out of the process. 

WILL CHINA MEDIATE?

Despite the fact that China is not directly or indirectly involved in the conflict, one question that has appeared repeatedly is whether China will play a mediation role in the de-escalation of the conflict. Given China’s success earlier this year in brokering the peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, there has been a hope that China might magically be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. 

China has previously expressed interest in mediating between Israel and Palestine. During his phone call with Israeli Foreign Minister Cohen on April 17 this year, then Foreign Minister Qin Gang openly offered to provide assistance if Israel and Palestine were to restore their peace negotiations. The offer was made right after China helped to broker the deal last spring between Saudi Arabia and Iran to restore diplomatic relations. No one took it at the time. 

People who now hope for China’s intervention or direct mediation in the conflict will probably be disappointed. It is unlikely that China will play an overt mediation role in the Israel-Palestine conflict at this point. This position does not preclude a change of course down the road. But for the foreseeable future, a unilateral mediation effort by China is improbable. 

First and foremost, the success of China’s mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia was predicated upon a shared desire for the two countries to improve their relations so as to alleviate the external security environment and focus on their domestic priorities. That precondition does not exist between Israel and Palestine. China’s mediation alone is not sufficient for a deal to happen. 

Second, it takes two to tango. For mediation to happen, not only must China have the will to mediate, the parties to the conflict also must have the willingness to accept a role for Beijing. Just like the Ukraine war, where China has publicly offered to play a mediation role, the actual mediation must be based on the consent and invitation of both parties to the conflict. Russia has rejected the Chinese offer over Ukraine, closing the door on Chinese mediation for the foreseeable future. Between Israel and Palestine, neither side has officially invited China to mediate. Especially for Israel, the current priority is to take revenge for the many lives lost during the Hamas attacks, not to negotiate peace. Under these circumstances, China is unlikely and unable to impose itself as a mediator. 

For the foreseeable future Beijing will prioritize calling for peace and de-escalation. If an invitation does come from Palestine and Israel, or the Arab world, for China to play a mediation role, China most likely will accept. But China’s involvement will be characterized by quiet diplomacy until there is concrete result. After all, mediation is a process, rather than just an end result. 

WHERE DOES CHINA STAND?

Having said that, China’s position on the crisis has several characteristics, which are unlikely to shift in the near-term. China has made it amply clear that it sees no other way out of the conflict than an eventual Two State Solution, giving Palestine statehood. This, by default, implies China’s opposition to Israel’s continued territorial occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. When China publicly declares that it strongly condemns all activities that hurt civilians and violate international law, it clearly has the UN Security Council reaffirmation that Israel’s settlements have no legal validity and constitute flagrant violation of international law clearly in mind. 

China has been loudly critical of “great powers outside the region” for failing to be objective and just. Its finger is implicitly pointed at the U.S. for its unswerving support of Israel…

Second, the Chinese calling for an “international peace conference that is more authoritative, with broader participation and more effective to push Israel and Palestine to restore peace talks as soon as possible” clearly indicates the Chinese preference for a multilateral approach to the current crisis, rather than a unilateral or bilateral one. The inclusion of all stakeholders in the peace conference will certainly not help in terms of a speedy solution. But, Beijing believes, the exclusion of any of them will for sure hinder any lasting solution from emerging. 

Third, as stated by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, the Chinese government shares the same position as Arab countries on the current escalation of the crisis. This was also the traditional position of China on the Israel-Palestine issue even during the Cold War. Given the recent leaps in China’s relationship with key countries in the Middle East, its continued siding with Arab countries is as expected. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR GREAT POWER COMPETITION

It would be wrong to assume that China prefers instability over the peace deal that the U.S. was shepherding between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In fact, many Chinese experts see the current crisis as a temporary roadblock, rather than a permanent reversal of the trend of reconciliation between Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, the position that China is taking to side with Arab countries buys it a lot of mileage in the region, and among Muslim countries globally. It could also have strong resonance with the rest of the Global South, a key field of competition between the U.S. and China currently. 

China has been loudly critical of “great powers outside the region” for failing to be objective and just. Its finger is implicitly pointed at the U.S. for its unswerving support of Israel, including its veto of the UN Security Council resolution that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza.

Given the current positive atmosphere between the U.S. and China, before the upcoming San Francisco Summit between Presidents Xi and Biden next month, the crisis in the Middle East is unlikely to be a focal point of overt quibbling and public finger-pointing. If things go well, we could even see the two countries jointly discuss the need for de-escalation and peace at that meeting. However, it might be a little far-fetched to hope the two great powers can negotiate jointly and act together to encourage a de-escalation of the current crisis. But one can always hope.

---