Palestine Embraces Multipolarity – Invites China To Broker Multiparty Peace Deal

Patriotic Palestinians have long known that the US had no genuine intentions to neutrally broker a fair peace deal, but under Donald Trump, the silent reality behind America’s pro-Zionist position has become blatant and undeniable, even among the most naive Palestinian politicians. Trump’s recognition of Al-Quds/Jerusalem as the capital of “Israel” led to Palestine rejecting a unilateral US role in any future peace process.

Instead, Palestinian leaders welcomed Russia as one of the few countries that maintains healthy relations with both Palestine and “Israel”. Now it is becoming clear that instead of focusing on a single peace broker to replace the United Sates, Palestine seeks to welcome multiple parties representing many regions of the wider multipolar world.

Speaking at the United Nations Security Council, Palestinian envoy Riyadh Mansour said that he welcomed a multi-party peace format which would ideally include, China, the Arab League, the existing quartet of the UN, US, EU and Russia as well as other partners. Additionally, while speaking in Ethiopia, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that he welcomed a role for the African Union in a future peace process.

The collective peace process that Palestine has proposed is something that should have been implemented decades ago. Only when a quorum of world opinion on the matter is necessarily infused into discussions regarding peace for Palestine, will there be a genuine opportunity for Palestinians to get their voices heard. It will also become apparent to the Zionist side that while historically supportive of Palestine, China and Russia also have healthy contacts in Tel Aviv and therefore Russia and China are far more subtle in their views of the conflict than the US has ever been. Likewise, the African Union is made up of multiple nations that can relate to Palestine from the perspective of their own anti-Colonial struggles. At the same time,  African nations are roughly split between Muslim states which support Palestine and countries who have perhaps worryingly adopted many tenants of the so-called “Christian Zionism” that is so prevalent in the United States. Thus, Africa has a surprise degree of diversity in respect of opinions on Palestine, in spite of sharing Palestine’s anti-colonial struggle.

While a collective solution is always healthier than one dominated by a single partner, especially if this partner is as biased as the US, the Palestinian proposals for a collective brokering peace process also demonstrate that Palestine has seen that the wind is blowing in the direction of multilateral solutions to the world’s problems.

In Syria for example, the US has not played any meaningful role in the peace process. This has all been conducted by Russia, Iran and Turkey. Likewise, in working to solve the refugee crisis in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, it was China that brokered a peace deal involving both Bangladesh and Myanmar. On the Korean peninsula, it was not American diplomats that helped bring about cooperation between the two Korean states at the Olympics, but it was instead the initiative of Kim Jong-un whose diplomats worked with those of South Korean President Moon Jae-in to foment the historic Olympic thaw in Korea. It is also thought that high level Russian diplomats who have good relations with both Korean states helped to inspire this positive sift in Korea. Likewise, Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir has openly stated he seeks to prioritise good relations with Russia, China and Turkey over that of the US. Finally, in spite of historically dependant post-colonial relations with the US, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has reached an accord with China, regarding the South China Sea which firmly rejects US antagonism towards Beijing.


China, not Russia, should be the go-to peace arbiter for Palestine

Palestine has grasped the essence of wider global trends which reject the monolithic bilateralism of US diplomacy and instead embrace the multilateral approach which typifies 21st century thinking which the old fashioned US refuses to embrace.

“Israel” too will have to learn that the days of its close US partner dictating the terms of war and peace to the world has come to an end. From now on, if anything is to be accomplished in any conflict, it will require a multilateral solution, one that “Israel” will find increasingly difficult to resist, however much they may seek to do so.


Did Mahmoud Abbas Just Endorse A One State Solution?

Comments are closed.