The problem with your comparison with Taiwan is Taiwan is an island that is part of China but is currently controlled by an occupying force. This is agreed upon by almost all nations except for 12, the US also agrees on this btw.

What the west is saying is that regardless of this, China does not have the right to an armed resistance against Taiwan even though they consider it part of China. They even agreed to arm Taiwan to prevent this attack from happening.

So in terms of their statement on Palestine, this is actually consistent. The Palestinians have a right to kick out their occupiers, much like China has the right to kick out Taiwan's occupiers.

You view it differently, but as I stated before almost all members of the UN agree Taiwan is part of China.

*Edit: On a personal level I don't actually agree with this. I don't want an invasion of Taiwan. I'm merely pointing out the "gotcha" you tried to set up doesn't actually make sense. Instead it's actually quite consistent with China's position on Taiwan.

*Edit 2: This is also why China seems petty and runs around making sure all nations that trade with China state there's only one China. That's what the whole Lithuania thing was about. China is stating if the majority of the UN believes in a 2 party solution, then the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. Since the majority of UN believes in a 1 party solution for Taiwan, then it's the Taiwanese who are the occupiers and China has a right to defend itself.

*Edit 3: Ironically, the same cannot be said for China's consistency on the SCS. If you wanted a "gotcha" then China's claim to the SCS is absurd. But that said, they never said it was OK for them to be in an armed conflict over that. So I guess take that how you will.

[+] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social -6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I talked about that. This is how China is keeping the messaging consistent. Again, according to most states in the UN, they want a 2 state solution for Palestine. That's why China's pushing an armed resistance solution for the Palestinians.

Also, according to most states in the UN, they agree upon a 1 state solution for China and Taiwan. That's why China's pushing for an armed resistance solution against the Taiwanese occupiers.

It doesn't matter what states say internally or want internally. The whole point is consistency of message from the Chinese. Which is armed resistance is acceptable for occupations. Thus, no "oh what if it turned around on China?" It's consistent messaging, there's no turning around.

NOW what you're arguing is that the people don't feel that way. Which means the west isn't following it's own "rule of law". The problem with your argument is it makes clear that China is the one agreeing and following the UN rulings and the west is bending the "rules of law". This is also why China cares so much about what they're "hearing" as you stated and doesn't really care about what they say internally. Which seems petty to you, but means China is actually obeying rule of law and the west is not.