Throughout my posts, I maintain that it is China's interest to maintain a balanced relationship with Arabs as well as Israel. A bunch of guys jump out advocating we should stay at the side of Arabs, be the justice man and condemn Israel. Are we getting another blood brother again???
You have a point, ePhone ... but only superficially. And sorely lacking context.
When the conflict was still "Israeli-Palestinian" (i.e., prior to 1967), lip-servicing was free for everyone as long as oil flowed and the show went on between the "super-powers".
Then it became an Israeli-Arab conflict (1967 to 1979 or 1989 - depending on whether you use the Iranian Revolution or the Fall of the Wall as a watershed event), it still didn't concern much of East Asia at least, for that part of the world had its own intractable problems.
From the Iranian Revolution on, gradually until now, accelerated by the WoT and particularly the 2nd Iraqi War, it is fast evolving into a Jewish-Muslim conflict.
It's not about the Arabs anymore. The AKP didn't "turn on Israel" ... something happened over the last decade that made the Turkish generals turn against Israel (Likud and their friends' instigation of the 2nd Iraqi war had a lot to do with it). But the Propaganda will tell you it's all AKP and "Islamists" ...
Basically Trouble has already reached the part of the continent where 99.8% of Chinese live, on top of the reams of trouble that part of the continent already has. Whether this was by design or by "providence", it don't matter.
This is not Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab anymore. Maybe that's what Likud and Bin Laden both wanted. But is that what everyone else wants?
Wink-wink, nudge-nudge doesn't cut it any more.
People actually have to defend what is defensible.
And that is core interest.
My point is that it is not China's interest to totally side with Muslim, or totally side with Jewish state. We need maintain our balance.
You have to understand this is a false choice. The PRC is already f^cked if this is the choice it must make (I would substitute Israel with the more voguish "secularism" or "xxxx value")
It's not about who is "siding with who". It is again about defending what is "defensible".
For example, siding with Serbia to keep Kosovo is not the same as "siding" with Bosnian Serbs (thankfully PRC didn't lift a finger for the latter for they were engaged in the indefensible).
I will go so far as to say (strictly personal opinion) that Israel's survival as a sovereign state is very much in line with PRC's core interest.
Another way in stating the above is that the country's suicide is not in China's interest.
As for the Muslim Uighur, they do received financial supports from many Muslim countries including those Arabs. Saudi has been a big financiers to muslims all over the world, including them of course. I do think China need its iron hand on those Uighur since that is the only thing they understand better. For the past 400 years, history clearly has shown that under Iron Hand control, there will be peace there. As long as government looses the control, they will tend to carry on their terrorist/separatist activities.
No disagreement with respect to the "Custodians".
We will discuss Iron "fist" - its "advantages" and serious limitations somewhere else. I think everybody will agree that Iron Fist cannot be the only means. There will be debate whether it should even be the predominant means and for how long. My genuine belief is that it will fail, sooner or later, if it is the "main show".
But the "iron fist" has a definite role in helping to prevent a Hobbesian "Katastroika" ...
I will stop here.
In addition, "know the difference between an "Arab Israeli" and a "West-bank Palestinian"" will have any influence??? For Arab Israeli, they have Israel nationality and ethically are Arab. The other ones do not have Israel nationality and are refuges due to those several Arab-Israel wars in the past decades. What does that will bring you???
30%.
30% of West Bank Palestinians are descendants of refugees. That means at least 1.5 million (equivalent to 20% of Israeli population or more) are natives of the land but currently stateless.
How is that defensible? Some Uighurs are unhappy, but they have a state (sure they can hate the state). Some Tibetans are unhappy, but they have a state (likewise they are free to hate the state). Some Kurds are unhappy, and they have a state. Some Baluchs in Iran or in Pakistan are unhappy, but they have a state.
Why must the West Bank Palestinians not have a state?
Minority rights within states (even some quite imperfect ones) are not to be confused with stateless people's right to a state.
Has there been another country in this world we live in over the past 50 years who has been "settling" people on a parcel of land - any parcel of land that they do not consider to be a part of their state?
And making exclusive roads for these "settlers" among a people they do not even acknowledge? Queue your friend 500's "there ain't no such thing as Palestinians ..."
Nobody is calling for the IDF to vacate everywhere pronto and set the stage for anarchy. Read the topic of this thread again. Not condemning the settlement is indefensible. It's a no-brainer.
When you defend the defensible, even Israel will become eventually defensible.