Recently, when covering an investment dispute between a border-area kibbutz in Israel and a Chinese investment fund, some media outlets claimed that “China prohibits investment in Israel.” The Embassy of China in Israel has issued a clarification on this matter through Channel 12.
After the outbreak of the Gaza conflict on October 7, 2023, China adjusted the travel risk level for areas within Israel in line with international practices. As the situation has eased, areas classified as extremely high risk (red) have been significantly reduced and are now limited to small areas around the north border and along the Gaza Stripe border.
Strictly limiting personnel movements and economic activities in extremely high-risk areas is an international practice. Restrictions on economic activities in small, extremely high-risk areas should not be confused with the normal economic and trade exchanges between China and most areas in Israel.
China encourages Israeli friends to engage with us in various forms of economic and trade cooperation, and hopes that all sectors will actively safeguard China-Israel relations and play an active role in advancing bilateral friendship and practical cooperation.
Look, I get why people are reacting emotionally to this. But a lot of these comments are using this story as a launchpad for some pretty unserious conclusions.
“China does nothing.”
“China doesn’t care about anyone outside its borders.”
“I only support China because the alternative is the West.”
“They may as well exist on another planet.”
“China supports the Zionist entity.”
This is supposed to be a communist space. Where is the dialectical and historical materialism? Where is the analysis beyond “this feels bad”? Giving up the right to moral outrage divorced from material analysis is one of the many unfortunate parts necessary of becoming a communist.
“China does nothing” is straight-up CIA talking points/meme warfare. The CPC very obviously does things, if you spend even a few minutes looking through a material lens as opposed to a moral one. The DPRK exists as a modern AES state thanks to Chinese backing. Cuba has substantial solar infrastructure (even if still insufficient) because of China. Much of the Global South now has alternatives to IMF austerity and structural adjustment because China created parallel non-imperialist development channels.
China also clearly cares about people beyond her borders. What people actually seem upset about is that the CPC refuses to sacrifice China’s own stability, development, and security to satisfy Western-style moral posturing. That’s not a “lack of internationalism.” It’s important to separate internationalism from performative self-immolation. China does not yet have the strength to wage total war against the Western world and it’s dogs.
It also matters to be precise: trade is not the same thing as political alignment or military support. Mao explicitly addressed this. Trading with a country does not equal endorsing its actions or assisting its wars. The USSR traded with fascist states while materially supporting anti-fascist struggle. The distinction is whether you are actually aiding resistance, not whether commodity exchange exists and it is pretty clear China is backing the resistance even if they won’t start WWIII.
People also keep acting like severing trade with Israel is some low-cost gesture. It very clearly isn’t. Israel functions as a U.S. forward operating base and Euro-American tech hub. Any serious unilateral economic break would immediately trigger retaliation from Washington and it’s lackeys. Pretending otherwise is idealist nonsense. States operate in a world of force relations and kicking the kings favourite dog is a good way to have that force turned on you.
Does China’s foreign policy involve ugly realpolitik? Yes. Is it extremely frustrating at times? Also yes. But pretending China does nothing or is indifferent to global suffering requires ignoring material reality. China’s entire strategy is about surviving imperialist containment while slowly weakening Western monopoly over development pathways. That’s a long game. It’s not pretty, and it’s not emotionally satisfying, but it’s material.
If your “analysis” begins and ends with “this makes me uncomfortable,” or “this is morally wrong” divorced from material analysis, you are doing liberal moralism, not scientific socialism.
I usually find the consensus and conversation on here grounded and method-driven. This thread has been slightly disappointing.