A consortium of 14 Palestinian political factions, including rivals Hamas and Fatah, agreed to form an interim unity government for the occupied West Bank and Gaza after the war with Israel ends. The agreement was reached this week over two days of talks in Beijing. The Chinese government has sought to project itself as a constructive mediator in the ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict, but many observers remain deeply skeptical about the ability of this recent agreement, and China more broadly, to bring about true reconciliation in the region.
Christian Shepherd, Steve Hendrix, Niha Masih, and Sarah Dadouch at The Washington Post reported on China’s efforts to tout its role as a mediator, in contrast to other global actors:
The statement calls for the formation of a Palestinian unity government overseeing the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip and eventually holding elections, for which the leaders of the factions would meet and draw up a road map. The Israeli government has rejected any proposal that gives a governing role to Hamas or the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority.
Chinese media hailed the “Beijing declaration” as a breakthrough and a sign of the country’s emerging role as a peace broker in faraway conflicts. In a speech after the talks ended, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called it a “historic moment for the cause of Palestine’s liberation” and highlighted the “consensus around establishing an interim national reconciliation government to manage Gaza after the war.”
[…] “China’s Middle East policy is obviously different from that of the West,” said Tang Zhichao, an analyst at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. “There is an urgent need to reverse a lack of mediation by the international community,” brought about in part by the Western world’s geopolitical marginalization of the Palestinian issue, Tang said.
The final statement was peppered with language thanking China for its mediation and the need for more countries to be involved in resolving the Middle East crisis instead of just a “biased” United States. [Source]
Since Hamas took over Gaza in 2007 and ousted the Fatah-affiliated government, the Palestinian territories have been divided into two main entities: a Hamas-run government in Gaza and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. The agreement this week, which sought to bridge these divides, was called the “Beijing Declaration on Ending Division and Strengthening Palestinian National Unity.” Laura Zhou and Zhao Ziwen from the South China Morning Post described the significance of the agreement:
Recognising the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the only legitimate representative of Palestine meant rival groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) might join a coalition sometime in the future, said [Ma Xiaolin, an international relations specialist at Zhejiang International Studies University].
[…] “If the factions could reach a certain level of strategic unity and form one voice for the sake of the people, that could help Palestine to win support from the Arab and Islamic world and strengthen its position in future peace talks with Israel,” said Liu Xinlu, dean of the school of Arabic studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
“This is a big step forward.” [Source]
Few observers anticipate that this agreement will produce a different result than that of the numerous failed efforts by regional actors to reconcile divisions among the Palestinian groups in the past, especially given the current obstacles to unity. Crucially, Israel rejects the prospect of Hamas maintaining a governing role after the war. According to Haaretz, “a senior Fatah official said the joint statement was mainly to show respect to the Chinese hosts.” Adam Rasgon, Matthew Mpoke Bigg, Alexandra Stevenson, and Thomas Fuller from The New York Times described the widespread skepticism surrounding the agreement:
Yet, for many Palestinians, without concrete steps to make the unity plan a reality, the gathering in the Chinese capital was little more than a performance — and one they had seen before.
“What happened in China isn’t significant,” said Jehad Harb, an analyst of Palestinian affairs. “There aren’t any indications that Hamas and Fatah intend to end the split between them.”
Hamas and Fatah have been deeply divided for years, each trying to present itself as the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people and wary that the other will undermine its power. Multiple past attempts to broker unity between the rival parties have resulted in joint statements and agreements, but all those efforts have failed.
[…] “These statements aren’t worth the ink needed to write them,” said Abd Al-Rahman Basem al-Masri, 25, a resident of Deir al Balah in central Gaza. “We’ve seen these things before, and we’ve lost hope in them.” [Source]
China has nonetheless increasingly taken on a mediating role in Middle Eastern and Palestinian politics. It brokered a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia last March, announced a strategic partnership with Palestine and hosted President Mahmoud Abbas last June, and hosted representatives of Hamas and Fatah for reconciliation talks this April. In doing so, China has sought to project a positive image of itself to the Global South, in contrast to the unpopular American support for Israel and what many view as inconsistent American positions on human rights issues in the region. Amy Mackinnon at Foreign Policy described the intended audience for Beijing’s attempts to facilitate this agreement:
China’s diplomatic push for Palestinian unity also sends a powerful message to countries in the global south and across the Islamic world, where there has been a strong backlash against Israel’s punishing military campaign in Gaza, said Ahmed Aboudouh, an expert on China’s rising influence in the Middle East at Chatham House, as Beijing seeks to position itself as an alternative to the Western-led order in an increasingly multipolar world.
But no one in Israel is seriously considering China as a mediator, said [Assaf Orion, the director of the Israel-China program at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank].
[…] China’s attempt to secure a deal among the Palestinian factions, on the other hand, speaks to Beijing’s approach to high-stakes crises, in which it narrows in on a subsection of the crisis. “China plays a very crucial role in small initiatives to hand it over to the United Nations and to sideline the United States,” Aboudouh said. [Source]
“It fits [China’s] narrative that the US is the wedge issue, that Western involvement in the Middle East created these divisions and China can come in and ease them,” the Atlantic Council’s Jonathan Fulton told CNN. In his China-MENA newsletter, Fulton elaborated on China’s motivations for pursuing this particular avenue of engagement in the war: “After the 10/7 attack, China shredded its relationship with Israel, and as a result it is not a credible partner in engaging with Israel and Palestine anymore. China needs to be seen as a great power and great powers need to be involved in the Gaza crisis, so China’s only possible role is to mediate among competing Palestinian factions. If it can manage to bring a meaningful consensus together among them, it will have a genuine diplomatic achievement.” Ahmed Aboudouh at Chatham House came to a similar conclusion, arguing that China is vying to be the primary representative of Palestine on the international stage:
Another takeaway is that the viability of reconciliation relies on the US’s ability to get a ceasefire deal over the line before November. There is now a broad consensus in the international community that a deal has to be structured as an initial stage of a peace process that leads to a two-state solution.
This is where China’s ultimate objective lies. Beijing is vying to play a central role in any long-term conflict resolution. Hosting Palestinian unity talks paves the way for a united Palestinian political and social front as a condition for the state’s stability. It also increases Beijing’s influence over Palestinian factions and, subsequently, the future state and its institutions.
[…] By brokering Palestinian unity, China hopes to become the representative of Palestinian interests on the international stage in any peace arrangements.
That would put its influence over the design of a future settlement on a par with the US. Beijing’s most favourable scenario is to oust the US from its unique privileged position as peacemaker in favour of a multilateral UN-led international peace conference where China and the US are equals at the centre. [Source]
But for many Gazans far away from China’s geopolitical jockeying, this week’s agreement brings little hope. Mahmoud Mushtaha wrote an op-ed for the Globe and Mail describing Gazans’ discontent with the focus on post-war scenarios rather than their current needs on the ground:
This recurring cycle of announcements and failed implementations has only deepened the despair among Gazans. The agreement, while diplomatically significant, needs to be backed by concrete actions to rebuild trust and foster a genuine path toward peace and stability. Until then, the people of Gaza remain skeptical, yearning for leadership that not only makes promises but also delivers on them.
The timing of this reconciliation effort is particularly problematic, as it comes too late, arriving amidst nine months of relentless war and widespread destruction. Gazans view this reconciliation as another set of lofty statements that fail to address their immediate needs. The focus should have been on reaching an agreement to end the war and mitigate suffering, rather than on reconciliation that only contemplates post-war scenarios. The question remains: How will the Palestinian factions, especially Hamas, which initiated the war, and Fatah, regarded as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians by many in the international community, respond to the urgent needs and concerns arising from the continuing war? The agreement’s emphasis on post-war governance seems detached from the urgent realities faced by those living under siege. [Source]
The declaration was signed one day before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to address a full chamber of the U.S. Congress, which welcomed him with 23 standing ovations during his speech. Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) also stated that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal and must end, along with Israel’s settlement construction. In the text of the Beijing Declaration, all signatories welcomed the ICJ’s decision.
Updated on July 26, 2024: The previous version included a quote from the South China Morning Post that inaccurately described the text of the declaration.
