China’s general position on the Palestinian issue is that the international community must push for a two-state solution and strive for a political settlement leading to the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, based on the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Based on China’s general stance on the Palestinian issue and its future policies regarding the administration of the devastated Gaza Strip after the war, China strongly criticized the UN Security Council resolution on Gaza, which was approved by 13 countries, with China abstaining from voting. The remarks were made by China’s Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, Liu Jieyi, during a session held on Monday, November 17, 2025, in New York, in which he presented a number of reservations regarding the resolution’s content and mechanisms. China’s Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, Liu Jieyi, asserted that “the US draft resolution on Gaza was unclear and a source of grave concern for Beijing.” He stated that while the resolution addressed post-war governance arrangements in Gaza, it appeared to completely ignore Palestine. Consequently, the Chinese representative announced his country’s abstention from voting on the US draft resolution, emphasizing that the Security Council’s proposal lacked significant substance and failed to reaffirm the commitment to a two-state solution and that the Gaza Strip urgently needed reconstruction after two years of war, genocide, and other egregious violations within the devastated territory.
The Chinese government, through its representative to the UN Security Council “Liu Jieyi” commented on the issue of sovereignty over the Gaza Strip, asserting that: “Palestinian sovereignty and ownership are not fully reflected in the Security Council resolution, and that the text fails to explicitly affirm the firm commitment to the two-state solution as an international consensus that must be respected”. China’s official position, as expressed by its representative to the Security Council, was that the draft resolution voted on within the Security Council was a source of grave concern and that there were four major shortcomings, most notably ambiguity and a lack of clarity in governance mechanisms. China expressed concern that the draft resolution called for the establishment of a peace council and an international stabilization force to play a key role in post-war governance in Gaza.
Accordingly, Chinese political, intelligence, and security circles, through their representative to the UN Security Council, criticized all these American measures, which completely neglected to explain to the Security Council and the entire international community the structure, composition, terms of reference, and operational standards of this force that will administer the Gaza Strip after the war, and the role of the peace council within the Gaza Strip that Washington itself proposed. However, the project included few details on these critical aspects, despite repeated requests from members of the Council.
Chinese circles also criticized Washington’s disregard for the principle of Palestinian ownership of Gaza. The Chinese Permanent Representative to the Security Council emphasized that the fundamental principle governing the Palestinian issue is that “Gaza belongs entirely to the Palestinian people and no other entity, and any power or agreement must respect this right and highlight the role of the Palestinian Authority.”
Beijing insisted that the Security Council have a direct monitoring role in the ceasefire in Gaza. The Chinese representative to the Security Council asserted that the proposed formula regarding the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian issue as a whole is completely incompatible with the two-state solution, as outlined in the New York Declaration, which enjoys broad consensus. China viewed the UN Security Council resolution as lacking any clarity regarding the specific timeframe for transferring control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. Political, intelligence, and security circles in Beijing also criticized and expressed reservations about the international mechanisms for managing the political process within the Gaza Strip. The Chinese Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council emphasized that “there is no certainty regarding the proposed peace council or international stabilization force to administer the Gaza Strip.” He further warned that the Security Council resolution could entrench the separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, which is not in the interest of the Palestinian cause.
The Chinese government, through its representative to the Security Council, directly criticized the post-war governance arrangements in the Gaza Strip proposed by Washington within the Security Council. China deemed these arrangements unclear, given that Palestinian sovereignty and ownership were not fully reflected in the draft resolution adopted by the Security Council, which had the support of Washington and several other countries. More importantly for the Chinese, the draft resolution “completely failed to clearly affirm a strong commitment to the two-state solution,” a matter of grave concern to them.
Therefore, Chinese circles considered the disregard for the role of the United Nations and the oversight of the Security Council regarding the Palestinian issue a serious flaw. The Chinese Permanent Representative to the Security Council explained that the draft resolution requested the Security Council to authorize the formation of a “Peace Council” to assume full responsibility for security and administrative arrangements in the Gaza Strip after the war, but it “does not stipulate any oversight or review mechanism beyond written annual reports”. The Chinese Permanent Representative to the Security Council emphasized that the United Nations possesses extensive experience and capabilities in managing recovery and reconstruction and should have played a leading role in the governing council for the Gaza Strip. However, the resolution completely omitted any mention of this.
Political, intelligence, and security circles in China, through the remarks of their Permanent Representative to the Security Council, also criticized this severe lack of comprehensive consultations regarding the future of the Gaza Strip. China criticized the approach of the penholder, Washington, referring to the United States’ attempt to impose its own dictates, conditions, and standards on the Palestinian issue and the future of the beleaguered Gaza Strip. The US pressured the Security Council to adopt a resolution on the fate of Gaza less than two weeks after its initial establishment, with China expressing strong reservations that most of the questions and proposals raised by members within the Security Council were disregarded.
For this reason, the Chinese Permanent Representative to the Security Council expressed his country’s disappointment at the adoption of this harmful American approach, which disrespects the members of the Council and undermines its unity. The Chinese representative to the Security Council “Liu Jieyi” justified his country’s abstention from voting on this Security Council resolution by stating that, given the extremely fragile and difficult situation in Gaza, it was imperative to maintain the ceasefire, especially considering the position of the countries in the region and Palestine. He emphasized that “the Palestinian issue is at the heart of the most pressing issues in the Middle East, and it is a matter of international justice and fairness that should concern everyone, especially for the Chinese.”
This Chinese position on the Palestinian issue and the administration of the Gaza Strip reflects China’s continued reservations about the American approach to managing the Gaza file after the war, amidst clear disagreements about the future of the Strip and the internationally agreed-upon frameworks for a political settlement.
