Mideast balancing act need not tip over into support for Hamas

China’s comments supporting legitimacy of armed resistance have raised questions about whether it was justifying the October 7 attacks on Israel

For years, China has been one of the few countries to maintain cosy relations with Iran, the Arab states and Israel. Although Beijing has never been a big player in Middle East politics, its position has reaped many economic benefits, from fuel imports from Iran and Saudi Arabia to imports of advanced technology from Israel in the 1990s.

Although Israel eventually stopped these sales due to pressure from the United States, it continued to have good economic relations with China.

That was why, during the early days after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, Beijing was careful in its response, although it has not condemned the group’s actions.

Since then it has positioned itself as a champion of the Global South against meddling in the region by the United States, but there is no sign it has any fundamental hostility towards Israel.

However, it has prioritised its relations with Global South partners as well as putting its relationship with the likes of Iran, which is an important source of cheap energy, over that with Israel. It has also been quick to condemn the US as the main obstacle to peace in Gaza, condemning Washington for vetoing resolutions calling for a ceasefire at the United Nations.

This week also saw Beijing’s representative criticising Israel during a hearing by the International Court of Justice about the legality of its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

This move was widely expected given China’s long-standing policy that there should be an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 border, but the presentation to the ICJ by foreign ministry legal adviser Ma Xinmin was both surprising and confusing.

Ma spoke at length about the legitimacy of armed struggles by Palestinian people against foreign oppression, and how they were not terrorist acts as long as they were carried out in occupied territory.

“In pursuit of the right to self-determination, the Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right, well-founded in international law … Armed struggle in this context is distinguished from acts of terrorism.”

It is not clear if Ma was referring to the October 7 attack by Hamas because he also added that such armed struggles should not violate the international laws on terrorism.

While there is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism, a 1937 convention defined it as criminal acts intended to instil fear against a state, a group of people or individuals.

It is also not clear if Ma was simply repeating China’s long-standing position in support of the Palestinian cause because the wording was similar to some of Beijing’s past statements in support of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

However, it quickly drew complaints from Israel and praise from Hamas.

While calling for a ceasefire based on enormous casualties in Gaza is totally understandable, legitimising the gruesome acts of October 7 will only encourage more attacks by jihadist groups, and risk escalating regional tensions. Hamas also has fundamental differences with the PLO. Although the latter has a history of armed struggle, it is a fundamentally a nationalist group that recognised the state of Israel as part of the 1990s Oslo peace process.

By contrast, the jihadist nature of Hamas means it would be difficult for the organisation to change its goal of eliminating Israel, in turn making it harder to reach a lasting peace settlement with the Jewish state.

Actions should be taken to protect lives of civilians in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis in the strip is appalling, but that does not mean the October 7 attack should be legitimised.

Let us hope Ma’s comments in support of armed resistance were not referring to the

Hamas attack.

While there is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism, a 1937 convention defined it as criminal acts intended to instil fear against a state, a group of people or individuals