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

(apnews.com)

Show context

Animats ◴[26 Jan 24 19:10 UTC] No.39146689[source]▶

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-...

replies(17): >>39146742 #>>39146766 #>>39146826 #>>39146852 #>>39146857 #>>39146949 #>>39146953 #>>39147014 #>>39147096 #>>39147109 #>>39147177 #>>39148307 #>>39148309 #>>39148499 #>>39148643 #>>39149043 #>>39153036 #

mschuster91 ◴[26 Jan 24 19:27 UTC] No.39146953[source]▶

>>39146689 #

> 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.

replies(2): >>39146998 #>>39147142 #

1. rightbyte ◴[26 Jan 24 19:41 UTC] No.39147142[source]▶

>>39146953 #

> 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...

replies(2): >>39147337 #>>39148078 #

2. dang ◴[26 Jan 24 19:55 UTC] No.39147337[source]▶

>>39147142 (TP) #

Please make your substantive points without snark or swipes.

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

replies(1): >>39147670 #

3. rightbyte ◴[26 Jan 24 20:20 UTC] No.39147670[source]▶

>>39147337 #

Ye sorry, edited.

4. tomp ◴[26 Jan 24 20:48 UTC] No.39148078[source]▶

>>39147142 (TP) #

Casablanca is Atlantic, not Mediterranean.

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

replies(2): >>39148187 #>>39149260 #

5. rightbyte ◴[26 Jan 24 20:55 UTC] No.39148187[source]▶

>>39148078 #

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...

6. DDSDev ◴[26 Jan 24 22:06 UTC] No.39149260[source]▶

>>39148078 #

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.

replies(1): >>39149560 #

7. InTheArena ◴[26 Jan 24 22:25 UTC] No.39149560{3}[source]▶

>>39149260 #

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

replies(2): >>39149775 #>>39149968 #

8. DDSDev ◴[26 Jan 24 22:57 UTC] No.39149968{4}[source]▶

>>39149560 #

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.

↑