Introduction
The onset of Hamas’ military operations deep within the occupied territories represents one of the most significant developments in West Asia over the past year. While these attacks were strongly condemned by the United States and the European Union, China, as a major emerging power, expressed only deep concern and reiterated its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
China’s position on the Palestinian issue has evolved, reflecting shifts in its foreign policy, domestic developments, and broader international dynamics. Its response to the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas underscores Beijing’s consistent support for Palestine. In the early years of the People’s Republic of China, the country was primarily focused on domestic challenges and securing international recognition, and it did not play a prominent role in the Israeli-Arab conflict, partly due to limited political and military capacity.
By the 21st century, as China’s influence expanded across economic, military, and political dimensions, its stance on the Palestinian issue became more proactive, and the country increasingly engaged in the region. China intensified its diplomatic efforts with both Israel and Palestine and sought a more prominent role in the Middle East peace process. During this period, Chinese involvement in the Palestinian territories grew through infrastructure development, as well as initiatives in education and healthcare.
In recent years, in addition to endorsing a two-state solution, China has aimed to maintain a balanced relationship with both Israel and Palestine, consistently emphasizing the importance of dialogue and negotiation. This approach reflects China’s broader strategy of engaging with regional actors while promoting stability and peaceful resolution of conflicts in West Asia, including the Persian Gulf region.
Research Questions
What shifts and developments characterize China’s approach to the Gaza crisis?
What were the underlying reasons for the turn in China’s diplomacy regarding the Gaza crisis and the events of October 7th?
 
Literature Review
Several studies have addressed aspects of China’s foreign policy in the Middle East, though none have directly analyzed the impact of Chinese diplomacy on the Gaza crisis. Among the relevant works:
Saeed Hajizadeh (1401) in his article “Deepening Relations between China and the Zionist Regime and Its Impact on Iran’s National Interests and Security” examines the historical interactions between China and Israel and their implications for the Middle East, particularly Iran. Hajizadeh anticipates that competition between China and the United States, as well as the West more broadly, will intensify over time, influencing regional crises and altering the balance of power.
Seyyed Mohammad Shafi’i (1403), in “Examining the Results of October 7th in the Competition of Hegemons and the Role of Regional Actors”, focuses primarily on the regional actors’ attempts to facilitate compromise between Arab states and Israel in the post-war context. This work, however, does not address the competition between major powers regarding the Gaza crisis.
Mohammad Mehrniya (1403), in “The Strategic Policy of China and Russia Towards Gaza”, explores the nature of China and Russia’s engagement in the Middle East following the October 7th events, yet does not examine their positions specifically regarding Israel.
Given these gaps, this article aims, through a descriptive-analytical methodology and the use of library resources, to answer the main research question: What were the reasons behind the shift in China’s diplomacy regarding the Gaza crisis and the October 7th events?
The research findings, presented in the form of a hypothesis, suggest that China’s approach to the Gaza conflict—particularly its soft stance towards Hamas—is part of a broader strategic design positioning China as an “alternative” to the United States, aimed at asserting global leadership and presenting a new model of international engagement. Accordingly, it can be concluded that China’s foreign policy towards Palestine has gradually evolved from a stance of neutrality to a phase of active support for Palestinian rights and the two-state solution, aligned with the promotion of its Global Security Plan initiative as an alternative to the US-led international order.
Methodology
In this research, the descriptive analytical method and document analysis are used to relate two or more variables and to discover or scientifically relate them. In these studies, research is used to test predetermined hypotheses. The analytical and descriptive method is used to analyze the findings and is based on a library study. Thus, the descriptive method explains the origin and processes of the crisis, the October 7th operation, and the actors involved in it, and the analytical method emphasizes measuring the effectiveness of China's mediation diplomacy in resolving the crisis.
Results
China’s strategy of maintaining a substantial presence in West Asia while emphasizing soft power has allowed it to avoid aligning with any specific bloc, unlike other powers historically active in the region. Consequently, China operates according to a distinct model that differentiates it from regional competitors, without forming deep or clearly defined alliances. This approach explains Beijing’s cautious and ambiguous stance toward developments in the Gaza conflict. On October 27, a resolution was submitted to the UN General Assembly by Jordan, which received the support of 120 countries; the United States voted against it, while China voted in favor. Prior to this, China, together with Russia, vetoed a draft resolution that recognized Israel’s right to self-defense while simultaneously calling on Iran to cease supplying weapons to extremist groups. In this context, China has refrained from openly supporting either side of the conflict. As Zhang Jun, China’s Ambassador to the United Nations, stated after the Security Council vote: “This draft does not reflect the world’s strongest calls for a ceasefire, an end to the fighting, and does not help resolve the issue.” Compared to Vladimir Putin, who in a recent speech expressed that his “fists clench and his eyes fill with tears” upon witnessing the human suffering caused by Israel’s bombings, Xi Jinping has demonstrated greater political restraint. Since early July, China has held the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council and has positioned itself as a responsible global actor, capable of facilitating peace and negotiating a ceasefire. China has also clashed with the United States over competing Security Council resolutions concerning the conflict, with each side exercising veto power over the other’s draft. Overall, China’s diplomatic approach to the Israeli-Gaza war reflects caution, strategic neutrality, and an emphasis on maintaining its role as a credible mediator in the pursuit of regional stability.
Discussion
During the Al-Aqsa operation, Palestinian resistance groups achieved an unprecedented and entirely surprising military success, undermining established principles of military doctrine, including deterrence, early warning systems, decision-making processes, and civil defense. The operation inflicted significant and unprecedented damage on the Israeli regime. The Al-Aqsa Storm demonstrated that the military power of Israel is not absolute and cannot effectively deter jihadist groups or suppress resistance movements.
In response, the Israeli regime launched a devastating and attritional campaign in the Gaza Strip, known as Operation Iron Sword, aiming to restore its perceived deterrence capability, which had been weakened or even partially destroyed by the Al-Aqsa Storm. This approach reflects Israel’s belief that its regional influence is fundamentally rooted in military strength and the ability to deter adversaries. Consequently, any adjustment to this position poses not only a challenge to Israel’s regional influence but also a potential threat to its sovereignty and security.
The outcomes and consequences of these operations are expected to have wide-ranging effects—both quantitatively and qualitatively—on Israel’s domestic and foreign policies, particularly in terms of revising future military strategies. Given Israel’s limited strategic depth, constrained resources, and high sensitivity to civilian casualties, even minor tactical setbacks are unacceptable. As a result, deterrence remains central to Israel’s military doctrine, serving both as a primary principle and as a product of the broader strategic framework of the regime.
Conclusion
To restore its deterrence capacity, Israel engaged in Operation Iron Sword in the Gaza Strip, responding to the challenges posed by the Al-Aqsa Storm. This reflects the regime’s reliance on military power as the foundation of its regional position. Adjustments to this stance not only challenge Israel’s regional influence but also pose potential threats to its sovereignty and long-term security. The consequences of these operations are expected to affect multiple levels of Israel’s domestic and foreign policy, particularly with respect to the formulation and revision of new military plans.