China’s nefarious cooperation with Hamas, double standards with Islam

The unexpected terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent conflict in Gaza posed a major test of China’s commitment and capability in leveraging its newfound global standing to meaningfully impact the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. On 31 July 2024, China expressed “concern” over the death Hamas Politburo Chief Ismail Haniyeh and stated that Beijing firmly opposes and condemns the assassination. Haniyeh’s death is the latest in a string of assassinations targeting high-ranking officials of the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” including senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, who was killed in Beirut by an airstrike on July 30. Although Israel has claimed responsibility for several of these killings, Tel Aviv has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement in Haniyeh’s death.

In response to these events, Chinese officials and commentators reiterated their usual opposition to violence and calls for dialogue. Unsurprisingly, they also highlighted Beijing’s recent mediation efforts between Palestinian factions, which culminated in the signing of the so-called “Beijing Declaration” on July 23. Chinese experts also generally agreed that Israel has no genuine interest in finding a viable solution to the conflict. Moreover, while Haniyeh’s assassination has dealt a blow to Hamas’ diplomatic efforts, they believe its military capacity remains unaffected. Amid growing concerns over escalating tensions, some Chinese analysts even acknowledged the limits of Beijing’s diplomatic efforts.

Chinese diplomacy mobilized and, complying with Iran’s request, China joined Algeria and Russia in calling for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which was convened on July 31 to address the situation. At this meeting, China’s representative, Ambassador Fu Cong, condemned the assassination as a “blatant destruction of peace efforts” and a “wanton violation of the basic principles of the UN Charter.” Fu also denounced the attack that killed Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, attributing it to Israel and describing it as part of a “series of irresponsible actions that have occurred recently.”

Regarding the ongoing war in Gaza, Fu urged Israel to immediately implement the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, halt all military actions in Gaza, and, quoting Chinese leader Xi Jinping, “stop the collective punishment of the people of Gaza.” In his remarks, Fu, much like other Chinese diplomats, emphasized how resolving the Palestinian question is central to bringing an end the conflicts in the Middle East, stating: “The direct reason for the continued deterioration of the situation in the Middle East is that the ceasefire and end of the fighting in Gaza has not been implemented. We urge all parties to follow the overwhelming consensus of the international community and jointly promote an immediate ceasefire, save lives, alleviate disasters, and curb the spillover of conflicts.”

Haniyeh’s death occurred against the backdrop of China’s recent mediation efforts between Hamas, Fatah and 12 other Palestinian factions. On July 23, after three days of talks in Beijing, all 14 Palestinian groups signed the “Beijing Declaration on Ending Division and Strengthening Palestinian National Unity,” or simply, the “Beijing Declaration.” According to this agreement, all parties agreed to form a “temporary [Palestinian] national unity government” and recognize the authority of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (this declaration was dismissed both by Israeli officials and experts).

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who hosted the signing ceremony, described the Declaration as “a historic moment for the cause of Palestine’s liberation.” He also outlined a “three-step approach” to resolving the Palestinian question based on China’s well-established positions: first, an immediate ceasefire; second, adherence to the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine”; and third, promoting Palestine’s full membership in the UN by implementing the “two-state solution.” Therefore, it was no surprise that when the Foreign Ministry addressed Haniyeh’s assassination again on August 1, the spokesperson referred to China’s efforts to achieve reconciliation between the various Palestinian factions. The China-promoted reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas received a frosty reception in Israeli media. While Israeli commentators were careful not to directly attack or criticize China, many dismissed the deal, arguing that it is unlikely that the two rival Palestinian factions will overcome their deep-seated disagreements to form a functional national government. 62% of Israelis hold an unfavourable view of China, up from 46% in 2022)

Naturally, Chinese media coverage of Ismail Haniyeh’s death also underscored and discussed Beijing’s active role in hosting intra-Palestinian talks. As the leader of Hamas’ political wing, Ismail Haniyeh had built relationships with various foreign actors, including Chinese diplomats. Notably, he met Chinese Ambassador Wang Kejian in Qatar in March to exchange views on the war in Gaza. Liu Chang, an assistant researcher at CIIS, posited that this meeting marked the beginning of China’s deeper involvement in Palestinian politics. Li Yanan, Deputy Director of the Middle East Research Institute at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), acknowledged that while the Beijing Declaration was an important milestone, further actions are required to achieve its goals, including the two-state solution. She posited: “If the Israeli-Palestinian question is a lock, then the ‘two-state solution’ is the key to open the lock. And if so, the issue is that this key has to be adjusted continuously so at the end it will be able to open the lock.”

Despite this, few Chinese commentators have addressed whether and how Haniyeh’s death event undermines Chinese diplomatic efforts. For example, Tang Zhichao, Director of the Middle East Development and Governance Research Center of the Institute of West Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, simply argued that China advocates for a common and cooperative “collective security look” for the region, which favours the political method of dialogue to resolve problems, rather than military intervention or coercion. Li Yanan asserted that China’s approach to security is not confined to specific regions but is a global principle. She mentioned the common themes and slogans in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric, arguing that resolving issues through negotiations, favouring equal dialogue, and seeking common ground in pursuing national interests are central to Xi Jinping’s vision of a “Shared Future for Mankind.” For her, this principle underpins the three global initiatives proposed by Xi Jinping: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative.

With Yahya Sinwar, widely regarded the architect behind the October 7 attack on Israel, now stepping into Haniyeh’s role, the situation might become even more complicated. Fudan University’s Sun Degang remarked that the new leader has no interest in compromising, and this significantly hinders efforts to find a politico-diplomatic solution. It would be surprising if, beneath the celebratory narrative, these concerns about the future are not widely shared among Chinese experts and officials.

The situation in Gaza increasingly seems a litmus test for Chinese diplomacy. China’s involvement in multilateral settings appears to serve as a tool for establishing common ground with influential actors. Domestically, Chinese commentators mention the growing expectation within the international community for China to play a greater role in peace settlements, aligning with its posturing as a major power. While Chinese scholars generally agree on the importance of diplomatic platforms and of building consensus, for the time being a permanent ceasefire seems a distant reality, let alone a peace process. They largely attribute this to the unwillingness of the involved parties, who, despite international pressure, are unwilling to abandon a military solution and start peace negotiations. Remarkably, but unsurprisingly, Chinese analysts place more blame on the Israeli side rather than on Hamas, at least officially.

China’s treatment of the Uyghur minority in the country’s far-west, it adds, constitutes crimes against humanity, “yet many governments, including in predominantly Muslim countries, stay silent.” However, it does not shy away from direct criticism of Israel. Beijing’s approach to the war aimed to bolster China’s sway among Global South nations but ultimately revealed its inherent limitations. Thus, Chinese statement criticizing Israel and steadfastly discreet support to Hamas, while subjugating their Muslim population in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) and other regions, clearly demonstrate the double standards adopted by Beijing.