Alon, you end with: "I hope this at least clarifies all doubt about why I claim this." It clarifies something. Not what you intended. It clarifies that you have constructed a framework in which the primary geopolitical adversary of the American empire is condemned as a silent partner of the American empire's most protected client state. Based on the absence of actions that no other state has taken, measured against standards designed around Western activist discourse, using the West's own preferred foreign policy instruments as the benchmark for moral seriousness. It clarifies that moral clarity, pursued with enough purity, can arrive at conclusions that are functionally indistinguishable from the position of the people you are opposing. Washington would be very comfortable with your conclusion. Washington would like nothing more than for the global left to view China, the one power with the economic scale, the institutional alternatives, and the geopolitical positioning to genuinely constrain American unipolar dominance, as just another imperial actor, equally condemned, equally dismissed. Your six points do not threaten the architecture of Israeli impunity. They reinforce it. By discrediting the one actor with the structural capacity to eventually change the conditions that make Palestinian statehood impossible. You are not wrong to demand more of China. But a framework that ends with "China is Israel's silent partner" and begins with "I have six points," That framework is not serving Palestine. It is serving the people who need the world to believe that no alternative to American hegemony is morally credible. Think about who benefits from that conclusion. Then think about who you are actually fighting for.