What is currently unfolding in Gaza can be placed in the same
conversation as 1948 and 1967. The violations of human rights and international
laws committed by Israel are raising eyebrows at the shaky moral compass of the
frail international community. Regardless of the unwillingness to hold Israel
accountable, it is the inability to pressure it into stopping the attacks that
is more disconcerting.
اضافة اعلان
The United Nations Security Council has been deliberating resolutions
to address shortages of food, water, electricity, and medical supplies. The
United States called for a humanitarian pause, vetoed by China and Russia. The
latter proposed a humanitarian ceasefire, which failed to attract significant
support.
Are Russia and China really
pro Palestine?
These “semantically opposing” proposals effectively canceled each other
out and left the Palestinians defenseless and aidless amidst the continued
onslaught. These semantic differences have also seemingly pegged Russia and
China as more proactive proponents of the Palestinians, compared to the United
States. But is that really the case?
China and Russia’s veto to the United States’ proposal would be a
difficult stance to defend. Granted, in any context, a ceasefire is generally
longer and more formal than a pause. However, in this particular case, a
humanitarian pause – however long it may have lasted, was a lifeline the
Palestinians are still in a desperate need for.
These semantic differences have also seemingly pegged Russia and China as more proactive proponents of the Palestinians, compared to the United States. But is that really the case?
Further, Russia’s counter proposed resolution is consistent with their
previous behavior in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The proposed
humanitarian ceasefire, though necessary and significant, was never going to
pass.
Meaning, it is not an understatement to believe that Russia, and China
for that matter, wanted to simply balance against the United States and to
score points with Arab States. Thus, knowing of the ultimate failure of their
proposed resolution, China and Russia’s support to the Palestinians is simply
paying lip service, co opting Arabs’ central cause for their own interests, an
approach not exclusive to this current crisis.
In fact, in reviewing 67 UN Security Council meetings that dealt with
the “Question of Palestine”, both China and Russia’s seemingly pro-Palestine
stance rarely transcended beyond empty rhetoric; rather, they mostly lacked
actual, substantial, or tangible support on the grounds.
Specifically, much of their rhetoric during these 67 meetings featured
three main messages: emphasizing the two-state solution, condemning illegal
settlements, and indicating the need for peace-building, including welcoming
such efforts, especially those by Arab States. The United States’ narrative
during the same meetings not only echoed the same three messages, but they also
highlighted the size of financial and humanitarian support provided to the
Palestinians.
Whether through the UNRWA or USAID, the US has averaged an annual USD
600 million in support to the Palestinians since 1994. For the sake of
comparison, for every USD 1 provided by Russia to aid the Palestinians, the
United States provides USD 60, and for USD 1 provided by China to Palestine,
the United States provides approximately USD 745, according to official
statements by their respective governments.
Russia and China may not be
the allies we think they are
These substantial gaps in aid provision to the Palestinians are
reflective of the United States’ tangible and meaningful efforts on the ground,
albeit does not tend to be promoted heavily. Yet, the size of aid provision
tends to take a backseat to empty talk, as unsubstantiated statements made by
Russia or China tend to be wrongly classified as support.
Russia and China’s publicly promoted narrative eclipse the fact its
support remains merely lip service. When combined with the inconspicuousness of
the United States’ meaningful, concrete support, a false image is disseminated,
portraying the Russia/China camp as the savior of the Palestinians, when in
reality they pale in comparison with the United States.
Consequently, Russia and China’s track record of supporting Arab States
is not as rosy as we are made to perceive. In fact, their involvement in
foreign countries tends to be economically and politically extractive, just as
much as their military interventions are often inexperienced and destructive.
In Syria and Sudan, for instance, Russia backed military strongmen in
Al-Assad, Burhan, and Dagalo while its paramilitary group, Wagner, developed
oil deposits and extracted gold. An estimated 223 tons of Sudan’s gold was
smuggled, per year since 2019, into Russia to overcome the impact of sanctions
and prolong its war in Ukraine.
Russia and China’s publicly promoted narrative eclipse the fact its support remains merely lip service. When combined with the inconspicuousness of the United States’ meaningful, concrete support, a false image is disseminated, portraying the Russia/China camp as the savior of the Palestinians, when in reality they pale in comparison with the United States.
China’s involvement in the region has increased in the past few years.
Its need to protect its economic interests, chief among which is the Belt and
Road Initiative, could propel it toward abandoning its political and security
hands-off approach. The recent deployment of warships to the Middle East is
case in point.
China and Russia are hijacking Arabs’ understandable anger with the
United States’ compounded military support to Israel, utilizing this anger as a
catalyst to portray an image of support. But therein lies the intent, which is
to challenge the United States’ dominance, not to actually aid the
Palestinians.
Thus, despite its actual and sizeable support to the Palestinians, if
the United States was to be seen as a “frenemy” of Arabs because of its ties
with Israel, then Russia and China’s status as “friends” of Arabs is
unsubstantiated, because their support is neither grounded in action nor is it
even as sincere as promoted.
Mohammed Abu Dalhoum is the
president of MENAACTION and a senior research analyst at NAMA Strategic
Intelligence Solutions.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
