pretty weak sauce

Elaborate.

China has prioritized a specific interpretation of the international system here over the urgency of the needs of the Palestinian resistance and people. The genocide clause demands that they actively intervene through what tools are available and, other than fostering intra-Palestinian cooperation, they have not done so.

we all know how China behaves

Elaborate.

They are fundamentally rule followers in the international sphere. For the most part, that’s a good thing, but it’s a restraint they accept even when the costs are high, as here. I do not subcsribe to the ultraleftist take that China has totally abandoned the global south and proletarian internationalism or that it’s carrying out neoliberal foreign policy, as its economic development policy around the world is the single biggest factor weakening imperialism and opening up space for socialist change, but frankly, China’s foreign policy has always been inconsistent. This is an example of its failure and I do not think we should be desperate to justify every single one of China’s actions as the exact right move on the socialist international path.

what it’s willing to do and what it isn’t.

Elaborate with reference to examples of leverage China willingly forgoes utilizing. Be specific to the UN resolution first before jumping around to multiple topics. The predominant ideology used to filter these events is coming out of the political science and international relations departments of the west. The majority of the journalism consumed here is part of the western intellectual apparatus. The burden of proof is on the people who fell for the editorialized Drop Site News (state department funded, if that needs to be said) headlines presenting resistance comment on the Russian and Chinese plan which had to be tabled due to zero leverage as being condemnation.

China does not use the leverage of trade, even when international law would mandate it. I understand the rationale, but I do not support it. They could end or substantially cut trade with Israel through all kinds of mechanisms that wouldn’t break international law. And quite obviously, in this case, they could have used the leverage of the SC veto. Would that have made an immediate material difference? I don’t know, maybe - China’s diplomatic weight is substantial, and to simply say “it wouldn’t achieve anything because the US doesn’t follow the rules” misses that the US is not the only player involved. And China speaks constantly - and correctly - about the value of multilateral systems of diplomacy and conflict resolution, and they could have tested the limits of that system here.

What is your source for Drop Site being State Department funded?

Thank