China’s foreign minister said Saturday that Israel has gone too far in responding to last week’s invasion by Hamas, China’s official news agency reported.

Speaking to Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Israel’s actions have extended beyond self-defense.

According to Xinhua, China has an interest in helping resolve the conflict and the underlying issues involving the Palestinian population.

  • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    All you have showed me is some broken vehicles. Thats not proof that terrorists did anything, nor is it proof that china had no other choice but to commit multiple successive war crimes.

    Your handler gave you one photo and a fantasy story and you barked happily on your knees. This isnt proof, its a pro genocide conspiracy theory that china decided makes great propaganda.

      • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        … Do you not understand how propaganda works?

        Did you miss the entire 2016 election?

        Also, I see nowhere in that article where it calls the protestors terrorists who forced china to slaughter all of them by bombing cars. So I think your handler sent you the wrong link

        • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope, they’re using that image to say China bad. And yet no one can explain how those armored vehicles got destroyed. They just conveniently leave that information out. Which is my point. I’m sourcing from WESTERN ANTI-CHINA sources. So it’d be really awkward for you to try to deny them. Which was the whole point. I really enjoy reading you jumping all over yourself to try to explain why western media that are anti-china is posting proof of what I’m talking about.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So, you think its more likely that terrorists snuck weaponry into a very regulated china, bombed chinese vehicles, and then got slaughtered while also magically removing any evidence china could use to prove there was a terrorist plot forcing them to hide all facts about the event?

            And its less likely that the well armed chinese military also blew up vehicles while slaughtering protestors?

            Who was the conspiracy theorist again?

            • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What are you talking about? This isn’t China today, this is China in 1989 when they weren’t able to have the kind of control they do today. In fact, Tiananmen is WHY China puts all the controls they have in place today. And we can feel that’s excessive, but at least know some basic history. Jesus, if you don’t even know basic history you really are a lost cause.

              *Edit: In fact prior to Tiananmen, the west thought China was so open they were happily selling China weapons.

              https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-NSIAD-98-171/pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-NSIAD-98-171.pdf

              It wasn’t until after Tiananmen did they feel China was closed. And China said it had to be because of Tiananmen. So yeah, back then, not too hard to get weapons in.

                • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What? I said back before 1989 the west was even shipping weapons into China, so weapons were pretty available. But they decided to stop because China cracked down and then became opaque. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.