Abstentions and the arithmetic of power: Reading China and Russia’s silence on Gaza
At a moment when Gaza is being pounded into dust — entire families erased, neighbourhoods flattened, starvation engineered — every gesture at the UN carries the weight of consequence. The expectation among many was simple: China and Russia would vote “yes” as a clear denunciation of Israel’s assault. Their abstention, instead, ignited confusion among supporters of Palestine and premature triumphalism in Washington. But triumphalism is hollow. An abstention is not approval. It is not consent. It is not a licence. It is, in fact, a very different kind of message — one that Washington and Tel Aviv understand far better than their commentators pretend.
The error most observers make is believing the UN stage is the entire theatre. It is not. The real negotiations — the pressure points, the red lines, the threats, the assurances — occur away from microphones. Outcomes are shaped not only by votes but by the silences between them. Beijing and Moscow have long operated in this domain: the arena where power is exercised without proclamation. Their abstention was not an act of indifference. It was an instrument of strategy and a deliberate refusal to give the US the consensus it desperately sought.
Seen from Palestine, symbolism matters, yes — but outcomes matter more. A “yes” vote, while emotionally comforting, can lock a state into a rigid diplomatic posture. Abstention, on the other hand, preserves manoeuvrability. It says to Washington and Tel Aviv: We have not endorsed you. Do not misread us. You do not have the world behind you. China and Russia denied the US the one thing it craves — legitimacy. Without that, Israel stands even more exposed in the court of global opinion.
What the abstention does — quietly but effectively — is protect the unspoken space where future pressure can be applied. It leaves room for intervention, leverage, and disruption when the stakes intensify. It is a signal that the door is not closed, the board is not settled, and no one should mistake silence for surrender. China’s entire diplomatic culture is rooted in such ambiguity — in leaving room to manoeuvre without contradicting its core position. Russia operates similarly, using vagueness not as weakness but as advantage. Neither power has ever hesitated to shift from silence to decisive action when global balance demands it.
Israel thrives on a narrative of inevitability — on the belief that no one will meaningfully oppose its path of destruction. But these abstentions puncture that illusion. They tell the world: major powers have not granted approval, have not surrendered the field, have not endorsed the erasure of Gaza. The US cannot claim moral authority; Israel cannot claim global backing. The strategic perimeter remains contested.
Western commentators, conditioned to interpret politics only through loud proclamations, often mistake quiet diplomacy for complicity. But those who understand global power dynamics know that Beijing and Moscow’s abstentions carry teeth. Both maintain doctrines against mass atrocities and destabilising wars. Both know that a full collapse in Gaza could trigger regional conflagration — something they will not permit. Their intervention thresholds are different from the West’s theatrics, but they are very real. And the US knows it.
Washington’s panicked back-channel outreach after the vote made this anxiety visible. Publicly, it celebrated the abstentions as a “win.” Privately, it sought reassurance. Because in geopolitical terms, strategic ambiguity is leverage — and China and Russia have retained theirs fully intact.
Donald Trump may strut and lift his collar for now, imagining that Israel has regained uncontested diplomatic territory. But the real chessboard — the one that determines outcomes — lies behind closed doors. And in that arena, neither Beijing nor Moscow will allow Gaza to be handed over as Jared Kushner’s ideological playground or a colonial sandbox for American experiments in domination. There are limits in global politics, even for superpowers that believe themselves unrestrained.
READ: Egypt opposes any attempt to divide Gaza Strip
What the abstentions achieve, quietly but unmistakably, is a refusal to grant Israel or the US any victory. They deny approval. They deny legitimacy. They deny the illusion of consensus. What remains is a world in which Washington stands more isolated than it cares to admit.
Critically, this abstention is not about opportunism. It is not about Ukraine or Xinjiang or internal calculations that Western analysts lazily project. China and Russia are fully capable of managing those theatres without sacrificing their global postures. Here, their decision is tactical, strategic, and grounded in a simple fact: their long-term interests depend on a global order not dominated by unilateral American power. Preventing the Gaza catastrophe from becoming a new frontier of US hegemony is entirely consistent with their geopolitical philosophy.
Equally important, these abstentions do not foreclose future action. They preserve it. An abstention is non-affirmative. It creates no endorsement. It provides no shelter to Israel. It gives Washington nothing it can brandish as moral authority. But it keeps Beijing and Moscow’s options open. And in geopolitics, open options are power.
This is what commentators often miss. A “no” vote is final. An abstention is a warning. It says: we are watching; we have not agreed; if the red lines are crossed, we are not bound by this moment. Israel and the US know this. That is why they celebrated so loudly — because they needed the appearance of a victory. But the absence of a veto is not the presence of consent.
What China and Russia have done is hold the ground. Not retreat. Not concede. Not withdraw. They have staked out the perimeter and left space for decisive action if Gaza’s already catastrophic conditions cross into a place that threatens international stability — or humanity itself. And if that moment comes, they will act not as states caught off guard but as states that preserved their full freedom to do so.
In global politics, ambiguity is not indecision. It is leverage. And leverage is precisely what Beijing and Moscow have protected — leverage against impunity, against unilateralism, and against the dangerous idea that Israel’s war can proceed as a “normal” exercise of power.
Trump may preen. Biden may pretend victory. Israeli officials may claim a diplomatic triumph. But beneath the surface, the message from Beijing and Moscow is clear: We have not approved. We have not surrendered the field. And if push comes to shove, we retain every instrument necessary to prevent the destruction of an entire people.
Strategic ambiguity here is not neutrality. It is preserved power. It is a non-endorsement with quiet force. It is the refusal to grant impunity the comfort of global silence.
Neither China nor Russia will allow Gaza to become a colonial appendage of Washington’s agenda. Not now. Not under the cover of diplomatic theatre. Not while the world watches an entire population fight to survive.
And in that refusal — deliberate, disciplined, and unmistakable — lies the real meaning of their abstention.
OPINION: No more custodians and colonialists, Palestinians will reject even a benign western control
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.