You’re reducing complex geopolitical economy to moral abstractions. That is idealism, not material analysis. In material terms we must look at who wields economic power, who sustains whom, and what the objective effects of policies are, not just rhetorical labels like “support” detached from underlying forces.

First, trade figures show China is far from Israel’s largest overall economic partner. The European Union collectively is Israel’s biggest trading partner and investor, with two-way trade far exceeding that with China, and the United States close behind as a top buyer of Israeli exports and major source of arms and aid. Even at its peak, China’s goods trade with Israel has lagged EU and U.S. trade by a tens of billions. This undercuts any simplistic assertion that China “kept Israel’s economy afloat.” In objective material terms, the core economic sustenance of the Zionist entity (particularly in military and strategic sectors) comes from U.S. military aid and deep EU investment, not Chinese commerce. The U.S. alone supplies billions annually in military financing and decades of cumulative assistance, dwarfing what trade volumes ever could.

Second, China’s engagement with Israel historically centered on goods imports and technology exchange, not the strategic military-industrial entanglement that the U.S. maintains. China imported Israeli tech components and sold consumer and industrial goods, this was not tantamount to subsidizing Israeli military, such as how the U.S. does through direct financing, arms sales, and joint defense programs. That is a key material distinction: trade in goods does not equal direct military support.

Third, because China understood the material logic of maintaining leverage and strategic space, it has taken concerted steps that undermine key Israeli economic advantages, such as aggressively promoting synthetic and lab-grown diamonds instead of natural stones (hitting a major sector of the Israeli economy) and cultivating alternatives to Israeli or Western software and tech dominance. These are strategic moves that weaken the Zionist entity’s economic rents, not bolster them.

Fourth, China’s broader Middle East policy must be understood dialectically. China purchased over 90% of Iran’s oil exports helping them bypass sanctions, provided advanced defensive and satellite technology that materially increased Iran’s capacity to resist U.S./Israeli military pressure, and brokered regional normalization between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is not symbolic “support”; it is material backing of states opposed to Zionist and U.S. imperialist aims. China’s trade with Israel existed alongside, and was in my opinion very much overshadowed by, its substantial strategic backing of Iran and the axis of resistance.

Fifth, material conditions show economic warfare alone on Israel would be materially ineffective absent damaging its key backers. Israel’s economy and war machine are sustained predominantly by U.S. military aid and deep EU economic ties. Even if China had unilaterally cut trade earlier, without the collapse of those major partners, the structural economic base of the Zionist state would remain intact.

Finally, openly hostile confrontation with Israel by China, beyond pragmatic criticism and measured pressure, risks serious regional escalation. Israel is a U.S. client state with deep military integration into U.S. regional architecture; an overt break would risk drawing in U.S. strategic responses and destabilizing broader anti-imperialist projects in the region. The material balance of forces does not support unilateral isolation of Israel by China alone without risking wider conflict. That risk is not something to be ignored in strategy.

China’s engagement with Israel was a contradictory policy driven by economic and strategic interests. Its trade never equated to primary economic support comparable to U.S. military aid or EU investment. China’s material support for Iran and other resistance forces, its moves to undercut Israeli economic advantages, and its avoidance of outright military confrontation all reflect real power dynamics. Simplifying this to moral binaries ignores the underlying imperialist structures that actually sustain the Zionist state.

The CPC allowing trade with the Zionist entity was bad but people always treat it like they were supporting them and seem to forget that the axis of resistance was also massively funded and supplied by them at the same time.

They’re too used to dealing with the burger Reich where not maximizing shareholder value at the expense of all else is a crime.

The pedophiles fear the dragon.

A system with a free media, an independent judiciary, and internal checks and balances makes it unlikely that tankies would be able to consolidate power and make a country autocratic, even if they won a round of elections. We’re more or less seeing the right-wing version of that happening in the US, where Trump clearly would love to be a dictator, but federalism, the courts, and to a lesser extent Congress have slowed him down and presented challenges that make it harder for him to succeed in his effort.

These people can’t be real. I refuse to believe anyone could be this completely detached from reality.

It’s obviously something to do with China but whether it was trying to get Xi to implicate himself, a business deal or simply scoping out the enemy isn’t clear.

The terrible truth

That makes sense. Anywhere more fitting I could repost?

I thought slop was just for all the reactionary stuff?

The pedophiles fear the dragon.

It’s such a shame that capitalism bastardises such useful technology and turns people against it like LLMs and these glasses.

The glasses unfortunately do have cool uses for disabled people. There’s a lot of research going on at a university near me about implementing LLMs and vision AI into them to provide the likes of real time subtitles for the hearing impaired and realtime environment description for the visually impaired. They absolutely should be regulated into the ground in their current iteration as creep glasses though.

Crackkker chauvinism will know no end until an end is put to it.

A crisis is when "the poors"^TM can afford housing.

I’m sure that definitely contributes to it. But entering a game of chicken when everybody already knows where your line is is simply a bad idea and I’m sure the CPC and Russian government realize that as well.

While true at the surface it was more to fight against groups funded by the USSR (such as in Afghanistan) to contain influence gains as far as I’m aware at least.

Which is a slight but very important distinction as it meant direct nuclear power clashes were far less likely and action even if perfunctory could be taken to avoid being seen as unreliable as it was against proxies, even if it became incredibly close at times.

For example if the US was arming Syria to invade Iran as opposed to doing it itself an Article 5 style agreement would make a lot more sense.

Neither China nor Russia are willing to end the world for Iran which is what would be required. The US obviously knows this too hence would not be dissuaded. All an article 5 like agreement would do is weaken China’s position as a growing alternate pole when the US invade and China doesn’t press the button.

An agreement to work around sanctions and help Iran guarantee development is much more beneficial for everyone.

Also article 5 wasn’t designed with the idea of ever protecting against nuclear powers, it’s purpose is to intimidate imperialisms victims out of being too uppity and fighting back too far.

Building shared skills for shared growth with BRI partners

Li Mingliang (executive director of the Belt and Road Tianjin Strategic Research Institute and professor at the School of International Business of Tianjin Foreign Studies University) on how the Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly driven by vocational education cooperation, with China exporting skills training to partner countries to support employment and industrial development, while stressing that future success depends on deeper localization, stronger integration, and adaptation to digital and green technology.

You just don’t understand, the tyranny of bedtime is the greatest tyranny of all.

Harry Potterism or StarWars Syndrome