zhan lingyi

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@linadreaamy 222

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@linadreaamy 12

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@linadreaamy 98

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@VerminusM 别假装你关心人类，儿童杀手🥷

[Zhai Xiang @ZhaiXiang5]

https://t.co/7EpDJEGwmY

I must say, I am genuinely surprised.

Compared with the hesitant silence we have often seen in the past, Japan's decision to issue a direct and public counter-response this morning to China's letter at the United Nations is unexpected.

I have read Ambassador Yamazaki's letter carefully.

While the document is tidy and follows diplomatic conventions, there is substantial room for improvement, logically, historically, and legally.

I studied China-US-Japan relations at Stanford for three years, and have conducted extensive archival research in multiple presidential libraries such as FDR, Nixon and Reagan, where I handled original correspondence between Japanese leaders, US presidents, and White House memos. I also reviewed a large volume of primary documents at Hoover and in Taipei. My Stanford thesis focused on the Ryukyu and Diaoyu disputes and was published in the leading Chinese studies journal of the United States.

Let me, as a serious IR scholar rigorously trained in this field, respond point by point.

1. If Japan is truly "exclusively defense-oriented," why deploy military assets to the Taiwan Strait?
Japan repeatedly claims its defense posture is strictly defensive. But if Japanese Self-Defense Force vessels can cross national boundaries and operate in the Taiwan Strait, then: "Defense" becomes "projection."

This fundamental contradiction is never explained in the letter.

It is not simply a question of where a ship travels, but a question of how Japan justifies extraterritorial military deployments under the framework of a supposedly passive defense doctrine.

2. Japan's rapid remilitarization: still "self-defense"?
Over the past decade, Japan has taken major steps:
-Defense spending at new highs, placing the country among the world's top ten
-Acquisition of "counterstrike capability (in reality, long-range strike capability)"
-The 2015 Security Legislation enabling collective self-defense, a major constitutional controversy
-Increasing military presence oriented toward Taiwan
-Deepened operational integration with the United States

A fundamental question arises:
Did the 2015 reinterpretation of collective self-defense violate Japan's Constitution?
Many constitutional scholars in Japan say yes.

Ambassador Yamazaki avoids this entirely, while speaking at length about "international law." But he should also note Japan's domestic legal inconsistencies are far more serious.

3. Since Ambassador Yamazaki cites the 1972 Joint Communique, let's review what it actually says.

In the statement, the Japanese government declares its adherence to Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation, which states that "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out."

The Cairo Declaration of 1943, jointly issued by the major Allied leaders, explicitly stipulated:
"All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."

Under international law, states, not governments, are the subjects of sovereignty. Governments merely represent the state. After 1949, the People's Republic of China (PRC) replaced the Republic of China (ROC) and succeeded to its corresponding rights and obligations. Since the Ambassador presents Japan as a country that respects and upholds the authority of the United Nations so much, let's remind him of what was affirmed by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758:

"Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People's Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council."

Therefore, Japan's statement that it adheres to Article 8 of Potsdam is, in effect, confirmation that Taiwan belongs to China, and indirectly confirms that Taiwan falls within the sovereignty of the PRC.

I encourage the Ambassador to address all relevant clauses, not just the ones that suit his narrative.

4. Peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question? Japan must first examine its own policies.
I, like many others, sincerely hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question.

But if certain Japanese politicians threaten military intervention, and mislead the Japanese public by framing such actions as "cool" or "righteous" to boost their approval ratings, then how exactly can peace be achieved? I FEEL worried.

Japan's actions contradict its rhetoric. You cannot escalate military posture while preaching "de-escalation," Mr. Ambassador.

5. Accusing China of "stifling" people-to-people exchanges? This claim is puzzling
I honestly fail to see the evidence.

In the past few years, China has repeatedly funded youth exchange programs, covering airfare, accommodation, and all activities for young Japanese to visit China.

I myself have been invited many times to speak with Japanese youth participants and made some really good friends. China has taken such active steps to encourage next-generation understanding. So what, then, is being "restricted"? Could Ambassador Yamazaki provide a concrete example? I am willing to investigate it personally and respond.

Also, I genuinely want to know if Japan provides a similar opportunity for Chinese?

6. On Japanese fishery products: refusing imports is not "coercion"
The discharge of treated water from Fukushima remains controversial. Many Japanese citizens themselves avoid Fukushima products too. Every sovereign state has the right to maintain food-safety standards. China is simply exercising its consumer rights. Is Japan demanding compulsory acceptance of its products?

A deeply flawed argument.

7. Has Japan never taken coercive action against states with differing views?
Japan itself:
-Joined US export-control measures against China
-Imposed screening and restrictions on Chinese enterprises
-Engaged in political pressure campaigns in regional security forums

If Japan cannot faithfully answer whether it has ever applied pressure on others, then its claimed stance of opposing coercion lacks credibility.

8. Since Mr. Ambassador emphasizes respect for international law, then two questions must be answered:
-Japan's status as a defeated state matters
The post-1945 international order clearly assigned Taiwan to China.
No international legal instrument grants Japan any role in the Taiwan question.

-Was the "reversion of Okinawa" fully compliant with international law?
Okinawa was originally designated for United Nations trusteeship after WWII.
Japan seemingly bypassed the intended framework.

If Japan invokes international law, it should explain the legality of its own postwar territorial processes.

9. A country that consistently denies wartime history cannot claim moral leadership in peace
A truly peace-loving nation does not:
-Deny historical atrocities
-Embrace revisionist narratives
-Allow its politicians to visit Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines Class-A war criminals. If this is considered a contribution to peace, then the word "peace" is being used in a rather creative sense.

Japan has yet to resolve these issues. It is therefore difficult for Japan to position itself as role model of peace in the region, or in the UN.

Tone matters, but facts matter more.

I welcome Japan speaking openly in the United Nations.

But open statements must accept open responses, grounded in international law, historical documents, policy consistency, regional realities.

Rhetoric cannot substitute for facts.
Domestic reinterpretations cannot replace international consensus.
Unhalted march toward military normalization cannot count as pursuit of peace.

Perhaps the research intern who drafted the letter deserves a second look, Ambassador Yamazaki.

[Caitlin Johnstone @caitoz]

Zionists Are Freaking Out About Losing Control Of The Narrative

Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz made some very revealing remarks during an appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly on Sunday, expressing frustration with the way younger Jews are dismissing pro-Israel arguments because of the carnage they’ve seen in Gaza.

“We are now wrestling with a new I think generational divide here, and I think that’s particularly true in that social media is now our source of media,” Hurwitz said. “It used to be that the news you got in America was American media, and it was pretty mainstream; you know it generally didn’t express extreme anti-Israel views. You had to go to a pretty weird bookstore to find global media and fringe media. But today we have social media, which is the global medium; its algorithms are shaped by billions of people worldwide who don’t really love Jews. So while in the 1990s a young person probably wasn’t going to find Al Jazeera or someone like Nick Fuentes, today those media outlets find them; they find them on their phones.”

“It’s also this increasingly post-literate media; less and less text, more and more videos,” Hurwitz continued. “So you have TikTok just smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza. And this is why so many of us cannot have a sane conversation with younger Jews, because anything that we try to say to them, they are hearing it through this wall of carnage. So I want to give data and information and facts and arguments, and they are just seeing in their minds: carnage. And I sound obscene.”

Hurwitz went on to say that Holocaust education has begun backfiring, because it has been giving young people the wrong impression that genocide is always bad.

“And you know I think unfortunately, the very smart bet that we made on Holocaust education to serve as anti-semitism education in this new media environment, I think that is beginning to break down a little bit because, you know, Holocaust education is absolutely essential, but I think it may be confusing some of our young people about antisemitism,” Hurwitz said. “Because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews, and they think oh, antisemitism is like anti-black racism, right? Powerful white people against powerless black people. So, when on TikTok all day long, they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, Oh, I know the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel. You fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people.”

Hoo boy. Lots to unpack here.

It’s just so fascinating to see a former White House speechwriter making so many of the points that anti-Zionists have been making for years, but taking the exact opposite meaning from them:

- The mainstream legacy media has always hidden anti-Israel views from the public — and that was a good thing.

- Social media has now given Palestinians the ability to expose the truth about Israel’s abuses — and that’s a bad thing.

- People aren’t falling for the Zionist spin and narrative-diddling anymore because they’ve seen the carnage in Gaza with their own eyes — and that’s a problem.

- People who learned from Holocaust education that genocide is wrong have been applying those same lessons to the genocide in Gaza — and this means they’re “confused”.

Hurwitz isn’t denying Israel’s abuses or framing its genocidal atrocities as the problem, she’s just coming right out and saying that people obtaining information and moral clarity about those abuses is the problem. The atrocities aren’t wrong, what’s wrong is people seeing those atrocities and calling them what they are.

I love the way she complains that she looks “obscene” for trying to lay out arguments and narratives justifying the Gaza holocaust for people who’ve seen the “wall of carnage” from the genocide. I mean, yes. Yes obviously you’re going to look obscene if you try to tell someone why raw video footage of massacres, mutilated children and emaciated bodies is actually showing something that is justifiable and acceptable.

You can’t stand in front of a pile of child corpses justifying their murder and then whine when people ignore your spinmeistering and keep staring at the tiny bodies. That’s like murdering an entire family and then telling the cops, “But you’re not listening to my reasons for killing them!” They’re doing the normal thing while you are being obscene.

There’s a viral clip of this tirade going around Twitter and I was curious if Hurwitz had said anything after the video segment ended which might have made what she said sound less horrible, so I went to check out the original video on the Jewish Federations of North America’s Youtube channel, and nope. It didn’t get any better.

Hurwitz went on to say that people are wrong to carry the lessons of Holocaust education into opposition to Israel’s genocidal atrocities because the Holocaust was Nazi Germany blaming Jews for all their problems in the same way people think Israel is the source of all the world’s problems today.

She then mourned the way western Jews “re-imagined Judaism as a Protestant-style religion” in order to integrate into western society rather than retaining a strong identity that is loyal to the state of Israel.

“The problem is, we’re not just a religion,” Hurwitz said. “We’re a nation. Civilization. Tribe. Peoplehood. But most of all we’re a family. And so if you are a young person raised in America who thinks Judaism is a Protestant-style religion, then the seven million Jews in Israel are merely your co-religionists. So my co-religionists, if I look at them and they’re not practicing my religion of social justice and certain prophetic values then what do I have to do with them?”

“But that’s a category error,” says Hurwitz. “The seven million people in Israel, they are not my co-religionists, they are my siblings. But I think if you think of them as merely your co-religionists, it’s easy to slide into anti-Zionism. You don’t necessarily have that connection to them.”

Hurwitz is saying here that Jews around the world should be loyal to Israel no matter what Israel does, not because that’s the moral or truthful position but because Israel is where their loyalties belong.

I don’t know about you, but if my siblings were murdering civilians I would immediately become their enemy. I wouldn’t defend my brother if he was going around shooting children in the head like IDF snipers have been doing in Gaza, in fact I would feel a special responsibility to stop him exactly because he is my brother. Genocide doesn’t magically become acceptable if the perpetrators are your “siblings”, unless you are a sociopath.

It’s just incredible how hard Zionists have been freaking out about the way Israel has lost control of the narrative these last two years. More and more often we’re seeing them say the quiet parts out loud as they frantically scramble to manage perceptions and manipulate minds around the world.

Many things which used to be hidden are finding their way into the light.

Reading by Tim Foley:

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

You are asking China to do what the Arab capitals themselves refuse to do.

If the region that bleeds will not sever ties with Israel, why do you expect the countries that do not bleed to burn the global economy on their behalf?

A veto would not have changed the operation.

The U.S. does not stop killing because China raises its hand.

It only stops when the cost becomes unbearable.

A veto would not impose that cost.

A veto would have given Washington exactly what it wanted:

"China and Russia blocked peace, now we must intervene."

You call that "significant."

It would have been significant only for U.S. propaganda.

You want China to end trade with Israel.

Then why did none of the Arab governments who directly fund the Israeli economy do it?

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, every one of them keeps trading, coordinating, hosting U.S. bases, or securing Israeli access to their airspace.

You demand China do what the region itself will not do.

Cutting trade with Israel does not collapse Israel.

Cutting trade with the U.S. collapses the global South.

China’s restraint protects dozens of economies that would be pulverized by financial shockwaves the moment China detonates its supply chains.

Meanwhile the U.S., EU, Japan, and South Korea would pick up the slack instantly.

The price would be paid by Africa and Asia, not Tel Aviv.

Ending trade with Israel means nothing if the U.S. keeps financing, arming, and shielding Israel on every international stage.

You don’t fight empire by burning your own house.

You fight empire by denying it the legitimacy it needs to operate.

Geopolitics is not moral theater.

The choice is not between purity and complicity.

The choice is between symbolic gestures that feel righteous and strategic moves that prevent larger catastrophes.

China and Russia chose strategy.

They refused to give Washington the UN cover it came for.

They refused to bless a colonial plan.

They deprived the U.S. of the unanimous legitimacy it needed for its next move.

You wanted fireworks.

They delivered checkmate.

Morality without leverage is performance.

Leverage without morality is empire.

Strategy is the only place the two can meet.

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

You are confusing legal form with political function.

And in the Security Council, those two things are not the same.

Let me explain this in the simplest possible terms:

1. A resolution passing does not equal legitimacy for U.S. action.

If that were true, Iraq 2003 would have been legal.

It was not.

The U.S. acted anyway.

The U.S. does not seek legality in the legal sense.

It seeks cover in the narrative sense.

Those are not the same concept.

2. The U.S. wanted a resolution that it could claim represented international consensus.

It did not get one.

A resolution that passes without yes votes from major powers and with explicit objections written into their explanations is not interpreted as consensus.

Everyone in diplomacy knows this.

3. A resolution that passes with abstentions from China and Russia does not give Washington the legitimacy it wanted.

It gives Washington a text, but not the political authority to claim the UN endorsed its plan.

That is why the difference matters.

4. You keep repeating "legally binding" as if the U.S. follows binding resolutions.

It does not.

It ignores them whenever they contradict its interests.

Israel does too, with full U.S. protection.

So tell me:

What is the value of a "legally binding" resolution when the party you are talking about ignores legal binding altogether?

5. The only real leverage the UN has over the U.S. is narrative legitimacy, not enforcement power.

China and Russia denied that legitimacy.

A veto would have handed the U.S. the perfect excuse:

"We tried peace. They blocked it."

6. You are treating the UN like a court.

It is not a court.

It is a political theater where states signal, posture, deny, and legitimize.

And in political theater, abstention is not neutrality.

It is a refusal to bless the script.

7. So yes, the resolution passed.

But the mandate did not.

The consensus did not.

The legitimacy the U.S. came for did not.

You are looking at the procedure on paper.

I am looking at the power in practice.

A resolution passing is not legitimacy.

Legitimacy is who stands behind it.

And China and Russia refused to stand behind it.

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@cikunikyou @shucaileibaozh @JMSDF_PAO 知道你是孤儿…没猜错的话还支持地中海那边的另一个孤儿。

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@7minuano @internation0501 他们这样看你不代表这样看别人呢

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@Chiguakaixin 回来几个月了找不到优越感了，总得炮制一点吧，众所周知，美国制造是高品质的代名词，比如高华

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@Chiguakaixin 难道是因为X交易在国内违法的原因？

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@Q_May_007 SmSB还代表中国人民了？

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@ni_bingbing_jie 天天说鬼话想给中国人洗脑，说多了自己先信了

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@jinwang69489102 当初花出去的美刀跟着缘分一起回来了….还膨胀了不少

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@jinwang69489102 欧公子从前看老美也是一样的…

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@jinwang69489102 身体和灵魂，总得有一个属于美国

[zhan lingyi @zhanlingyi]

@Chiguakaixin 看起来这只即将诞生的小毛毛虫🐛是长不出蝴蝶的翅膀了

[Jason Hickel @jasonhickel]

The “rules-based order” boils down to this: The states of the imperial core can use unlimited violence to secure access to the lands, resources and labour of the global South, including gross violations of international law, and with total impunity. But any use of violence in resistance by the people of the South, even if minimal, and even if it is within the bounds of international law, can legitimately be punished with apocalyptic devastation.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

This is important. Barry Sautman, an American professor emeritus at HK University of Science and Technology, is one of the leading scholars on minority rights in China, particularly in Xinjiang.

Here's his take on the West's accusations wrt the Uyghurs: https://t.co/i6V8OC3t0L

Direct quote: "All these claims made about Uygur genocide, or forced labour, arbitrary detentions – basically they have no cases to present with regard to any of those claims. There’s absolutely no evidence of any person being forced to labour.

As for arbitrary detention, well, there certainly were a lot of people detained and many people imprisoned, and some of them given quite long prison sentences. But this was an anti-terrorism campaign. This was also an anti-separatist and anti-religious extremism campaign.

And the terrorism in Xinjiang was very real. Although the government has really only talked about hundreds of people being killed by terrorists, every scholar I’ve talked to says that this is a gross underestimate – that actually thousands of people were killed by terrorists.

Different governments of course act in different ways in anti-terrorist campaigns. Terrorists of Isis, al-Qaeda are still very much around, still carrying out terrorist attacks in many places in the world. China basically defeated the terrorists in Xinjiang, and it defeated them by some degrees of repression. That’s true. They mobilised the army, they mobilised armed police, the Public Security Bureau.

The main method was to try to do something to alleviate the conditions which create terrorism, religious extremism and separatism. So they constructed these vocational educational training centres, which people in the West love to call concentration camps, internment camps, detention centres. But actually, none of this is accurate in terms of describing what was done in those places.

And they only existed from April of 2017 to October of 2019, after which they were closed down.

The centres had three missions. One was to teach people Mandarin – they learn some rudimentary standard Chinese. They were also taught about laws that they’re supposed to obey – stay away from religious extremism, terrorism, separatism. And then there were vocational skills – there were eight primary vocational skills that were available.

The people who went through that system – and they may or may not have been happy about going through it – some of them were sent there because they had violated laws. Other people were sent there just because they were suspected of being religious extremists.

[...] What’s interesting in that regard is that the governments of Central Asia have a harder line than even China does against terrorism, against Islamic fundamentalism.

Now these are all Muslim countries, but their governments are dead set against religious extremism because they realise that there’s a direct relationship between adopting Salafist religious views – Salafism being the Islamic fundamentalist school of thought – and becoming a member of Isis or al-Qaeda or some other terrorist organisation.

So take for example this question of suppressing women wearing burkas in Saudi Arabia. China since 2014 has suppressed that. They’ve also suppressed men having long beards. Where did China get this idea? Directly from the Central Asian countries which passed laws earlier than China’s law about this. In Tajikistan, in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, people have been arrested for having long beards. People in China have also been arrested, but they’ve been treated much more leniently in Xinjiang than people are treated in Central Asia. Most people are just given a warning and then they obey it. They cut their beard shorter and women will no longer wear burkas.

These governments have a much more repressive outlook with regard to terrorism than even the authorities do in China. Authorities in China are dead set on ensuring that there are no longer terrorist incidents and they’ve been quite successful – there hasn’t been any recorded terrorist incident for seven years in Xinjiang."

There you go. This, by the way, is what all scholars who actually know the issue, have been to Xinjiang, and aren't fundamentally biased (because they're paid to be or just ideologues) are saying... But for obvious reasons, their views are never given the light of day in Western media: they much prefer to unquestionably quote accusations by the US State Department...