ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

There is another player. China is interested in resolving the Gaza conflict.[1] China's position is that, since the existing world order, the International Court of Justice and the United States, can't resolve this, China should become involved. Chinese container shipping lines COSCO and OOCL have suspended trade with Israel. China has already provided some aid to Gaza.[2]

Gaza has a sizable coastline, and China has a large number of amphibious assault ships available. They can defend themselves against Israel air attacks. If China decides to send humanitarian relief to Gaza, China can do it, and Israel can't stop them.[3] China would look like the good guys. Which their leadership knows.

[1] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/chinas-game-gaza

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-wa...

[3] https://www.newsweek.com/china-amphibious-assault-ship-type-...

Which other international conflicts has China resolved? The current Chinese state seems to be much better at fostering conflict (I.e. the ongoing Korean War) than resolving it.

They might look like "the good guys" by doing that, but they'd also be dragging themselves into an open war Israel (and its allies). I'm not sure that would be a smart move.

I'm also unsure if this move would be seen well domestically. They have enough problems right now, and focusing resources on this doesn't sound like it would be met with high praise.

This seems far fetched given China's traditional insistence that countries' internal affairs should not be subject to external overview, it's undeclared stance that subject populations should be suppressed by whatever means necessary and the still marginal effect of the conflict on its trade.

Amphibious landings are highly vulnerable, and almost impossible to pull off without air superiority. What gives the impression that China's amphibious landing ships are resistant to anti-shipping missiles? Every article on modern naval combat I've read highlights just how vulnerable surface vessels are to attack, and how crucial it is to keep them out of range. I am incredibly dubious that China would land military ships in Gaza.

This has exactly zero chances of happening. Israel would never let anyone they don’t approve of get anywhere near Gaza.

So far, not much. Gaza is a good place to start. China wants more influence in the Middle East, and already owns or operates a large number of ports outside China.[1] Israel blockades the existing ports of Gaza. A China-run port in Gaza, protected by the PLAN, is a possibility.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/china-...

Iran and Saudi Arabia

> Gaza has a sizable coastline, and China has a large number of amphibious assault ships available. They can defend themselves against Israel air attacks

Sorry but this is goofy fan-fiction. No, China does not have the ability to forcibly land in Gaza without huge losses, and then being completely trapped there with no hope of resupply. That's an incredibly long supply line.

> Gaza has a sizable coastline, and China has a large number of amphibious assault ships available. They can defend themselves against Israel air attacks.

Chinese warships will never be allowed anywhere near the Mediterranean in the first place - if there is one thing that even the split US Congress will agree on, it is that China already has too much influence and that they need to be stopped.

Additionally, China's army hasn't seen actual combat in a loooong time. It's likely that their army is in just as bad of a shape as Russia's is, and getting that demonstrated on the world stage before they have a chance to snack a piece or the whole of Taiwan would be pretty foolish.

I think the idea is that they'd genuinely be providing humanitarian aid, with military presence genuinely being there for self-defense.

They would simply be stepping into the role on the world stage the US and other Western countries have fulfilled for the last few decades. Israel probably wouldn't be foolish enough to attack them, and their allies definitely wouldn't aid them.

And in the unlikely event Israel does attack their humanitarian convoy, it would only give China an opportunity to do some live-fire practice and score extra points on the world stage as the innocent defender.

I don't see how military operations outside of a country's legal territory is considered an "internal affair"

China has been skirmishing with India pretty recently

You really think China wants to create a precedent where a foreign power comes and helps a smaller region to deter a bigger aggressor, with military force? I find that highly unlikely.

Gaza is kind of/maybe/sometimes/by some considered part ofisrael.

Do you think Israel would fire on those ships?

I was with you until chinese contested amphibious landing in occupied gaza. China’s big picture strategy is to grow while not being drained by small conflicts the way the US is. This would be totally against that strategy.

China doesn’t like things that cause revolts. Because rebellions can be infectious.

If China tried to land troops in Gaza I imagine they absolutely would.

That assumes that Israel would allow a China-run port in Gaza, which is no guarantee.

> Chinese warships will never be allowed anywhere near the Mediterranean in the first place

There have been Chinese navy visits to the Mediterranean. You can sail in on international water. (Edit: Nope, it's to narrow)

"Chinese naval ships visit Morocco"

http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/CHINA_209163/Exchanges/News_20918...

I believe parent was referring to the Uyghur genocide[1] not the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea[2].

The line of thinking is that if Israel is subject to international courts/laws regarding genocide for its action, then China will be too. China's participation in judging Israel opens itself to the same judgement.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...

Good cop, bad cop theatre of what I call the establishment division.

i don't think china wants having anything to do with hamas. For a first experience as a military-humanitarian adventure, the chances of appearing as a support for hostage-taking muslim terrorist is way too high.

It also assumes that the _US_ would allow a China-run port in Israel, which is so unlikely it might as well be impossible. Israel is a nuclear weapons state and such a close US ally that they basically have their own F-35 fighter jet variant.

This would NEVER happen.

No, it isn't.

China officially recognizes the state of Palestine.

The Isreali supreme court itself has determined that Gaza is not Isreali territory.

Indeed, anyone who knows anything about China’s long-range logistics knows that direct military conflict would be suicidal for China.

Their only chance would be to make a bet that attacking them would be politically unacceptable.

That is definitely Israel’s intention, but suppose China did go for it.

Does Israel have the stones for direct airstrike on Chinese fleet? It’s gonna get messy. It’s a big game of chicken, I am not sure who I would bet on.

Please make your substantive points without snark or swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The notion that Gaza's more than some variety of closely-held protectorate is either aspirational or a convenient fiction, depending on who's stating it. They aren't even close to having a level of control over their own territory and affairs to be considered a sovereign state. Hell, the West Bank also can't credibly be called a sovereign state, taking into account only facts on the ground and observed behavior, and not what officials say. In some respects US tribal nations have more actual sovereignty, in ways that matter, even though they definitely aren't sovereign states, from an international relations perspective, and functionally nobody treats their tribal territory as meaningfully distinct from that of the US as a whole, in these contexts.

However, situations like this, in which rhetoric and de jure policy conflict with de facto reality, open one up to others taking the fiction at face value. And what do you do then? Can't deny it without causing other problems. So now this may be regarded as an international matter because Gaza "isn't part of Israel".

Ye sorry, edited.

China may not even provide a military presence. First, because providing military presence could invite conflict since Israel would have the ability to claim the Chinese fired first, even if untrue. Second, because Chinese leadership is absolutely willing to treat the people as sacrificial pawns for a geopolitical goal. Trading the lives of couple hundred people on aid ships would be worthwhile in their eyes for an outcome that benefits China as a whole.

Gaza is more tightly held than Taiwan.

That line of thinking doesn't make sense since Xinjiang is part of China while Gaza isn't part of Israel. One is a domestic question, the other isn't (going by the international recognition).

Casablanca is Atlantic, not Mediterranean.

You cannot get into the Mediterranean without passing through territorial waters.

Heh—that, for fuckin' sure. The fiction there runs the opposite direction, where China pretends (and encourages others to pretend) that Taiwan's less independent than it is, meanwhile just about everyone acts like Taiwan's in fact very much distinct and independent from China, even if they say otherwise.

Then it has no legitimate say over the affairs of Gaza.

An Israeli court can say what it wants, but can't have it both ways.

Ok the Strait of Gibraltar was way narrower than I thought it would be and I mixed up the location of Marocco and Tunisia ...

Grabbing for straws: "Chinese naval escort taskforce visits Tunisia"

http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/CHINA_209163/TopStories_209189/79...

China: But this is a Domestic issue!

I don't see folks buying that, sorry. In international realpolitik you play the cards you have and if your rival opens themselves up for criticism you play it.

Rhetoric trumps logic in this one.

China believes in soft power. So I doubt they'd come in guns blazing to rescue Gaza.

However, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by brokering some kind of peace using their supply chain supremacy.

Meanwhile US looks more and more like a paper tiger because they can't stop Yemen from blockading Israeli shipments and also refusing to do the one thing that would resolve the shipping issues: force Israel to the table for a ceasefire.

I think its extremely unlikely that china will go to war with israel. That would be an extremely bloody conflict for almost no benefit to china.

Additionally china's military currently has big corruption problems (e.g. the missle fuel water controversy). I doubt china really wants to put their reputation on the line until they sort that out, especially given what happened to russia in ukraine.

> Gaza is a good place to start.

This made me chuckle :-) "Let's dip our toes into solving international conflicts with an easy one, like the Israeli / Palestine conflict!"

Pointlessly going to war with Israel would be so far out of character for China that I can't even imagine why you are suggesting this possibility.

How is the Chinese Navy getting there? Gotta go through Gibraltar or Suez, and then there is the NATO naval base at Souda Bay. Only way their ships get close is with US consent.

China has no ability to project much outside of its own territory. They might be able to invade taiwan, sure, but anything farther off is still out of reach for them (even if they wanted to, which I highly doubt). They really couldn't stage much from their one support base in Djibouti.

That's nonsense.

The supreme court has jurisdiction over actions taken by the Isreali government, regardless of where those actions take place.

China would only get involved to extend their influence. China is very much tit-for-tat. But who will grant them anything in return? None of the neighboring countries likes the Palestinians. Egypt even holds the border closed.

While what you are saying is technically true, Chinese ships would be allowed to exercise their right of Transit Passage under UNCLOS through the Strait of Gibraltar.

China is not a signatory of the UNCLOS. See the south china see debacle for an easy answer as to why.

To my knowledge, China is a signatory to UNCLOS, but has disputes around it's "islands" in the South China Sea and their relation to the EEZ. I acknowledge that China's relationship to UNCLOS, as a minimum, is complicated and rapidly evolving, but I dispute that they do not have a right to transit passage. Or to be more specific, I would put forward that they would have a plausible argument to claim transit passage.

The United States has not ratified UNCLOS, and regularly claims the right of Transit Passage. In fact, this fact is one of the reasons why Iran claims that the United States cannot enter into Iranian TTW while making a Strait of Hormuz transit - because the US has not ratified UNCLOS, their claim is that the US cannot claim transit passage. For the United States (or any Western Nation) to make the claim that China cannot claim Transit Passage would lend weight to Iran's argument, which you can imagine, they would not want to do.

I do not want to make any assumptions around your specific views on this matter - you may hold the opinion that China could not claim transit passage, however I wanted to interject some perspective that:

1. That may not be universally agreed upon 2. Specifically, the United States and it's allies may not make that argument because it would put them in a negative position for other international disputes.

yes

It adjudicates the actions taken by all Israelis. Its jurisdiction should stop at the border it recognises. But it continues however to award land outside Israeli territory to Israeli citizens by ruling on the status of settlements. That is extra-territoriality.

It's laughable, but if China solved this problem they'd be voted the world's cop over the USA overnight

> This would NEVER happen.

"At least two-thirds of the world’s top 50 container ports are owned by the Chinese or supported by Chinese investments, up from roughly 20% a decade ago."[1]

[1] https://www.freightwaves.com/news/experts-warn-of-chinas-inf...

That is preposterous.

Israel could (and probably would) prevent the fleet from delivering the aid even without help from the US.

In support of your "If China decides to send humanitarian relief to Gaza, China can do it, and Israel can't stop them," you link to a description of a ship designed for an invasion of an island 85 miles off China's coast, an invasion which China (correctly IMO) calculates would probably end in failure (or else it would've invaded by now).

Israel can't challenge China militarily in, e.g., the Pacific, but it is a wealthy competent state that takes security seriously.

Yes. Also, Beijing would never be so stupid as to send such an expedition.