Members of Kibbutz Hanita are suing the Chinese-controlled Ballet Vision fund for refusing to buy their remaining stake in an intraocular lens plant, citing losses and what it says is a Chinese government ban on new investments in Israel since the war
Well yeah, every state action done by every country is for political/strategic reasons. I think their motives are clear: 1) Help Palestine achieve liberation through passive aid; and 2) increase China’s clout on the world stage.
China buys a shit ton of oil from Iran, which is coming under military attack from Israel seemingly regularly --Israel also had a hand in heightening civil unrest during recent riots (though iran’s regime is also brutal in its response – Israel openly admitted its agents were operating in the area during the unrest). China’s likely getting impacted by all the recent ‘shadow fleet’ oil tanker seizures. Israel is basically tied to the United States, a country that’s clearly antagonistic towards China. China also doesn’t really care that much about human rights / the welfare of individuals/people, as evidenced by things like the Uyghur situation.
So the thought that they’re doing it to ‘help palestine achieve liberation through passive aid’ is, I think, a nonsense reason that gets trotted out for potential PR reasons, maybe. Increasing their clout, I’d say is a very minor motivator: I don’t know anyone who’d deny China is a major power.
It’s a ‘generally good’ move they’re making for the people in that region, and for human dignity in general. But the reasons for taking this step, is not for the benefit of people in that region.
Agreed, the Iranian oil angle is a good analysis of a material reason for China to support Palestine.
When I say clout, I mean clout as a good actor on the world stage. China has to overcome decades of negative propaganda (some of which is based in truth, most is exaggerated or taken out of context, and some is outright fabricated). Actions like this promote China as an arbiter of peace and as a humane alternative to the naked barbarity of US/Western imperialism.
I don’t see why altruism can’t be a core motive for this move in addition to the strategic value. They are people, after all, who surely suffer as we do in the face of murdered Palestinian children.
I don’t see why altruism can’t be a core motive for this move in addition to the strategic value. They are people, after all, who surely suffer as we do in the face of murdered Palestinian children.
Because it’s about as authentic a reason for China, as “Freeing Ukraine from Nazi’s” is for Russia.
No, my basic argument is that it’s a ‘good’ thing generally for people in that area, but that it’s not done for their benefit.
Read the linked article. They aren’t selling the ban in any way as a humanitarian thing. It’s a ‘risk’ thing to do with the instability in the area, and (quite likely) the potential for the USA’s connections to Israel to disrupt any potential Chinese investment in the region.
All the attempts to make this sound like some humanitarian / progressive move on the part of china is bullshit injected by apologists in this thread. It’s not in the article, nor has China really made any big overtures related to human rights. And given the Uyghur situation, and the state of human rights in China, it’s pretty clear that they aren’t that bothered with that stuff.
Well yeah, every state action done by every country is for political/strategic reasons. I think their motives are clear: 1) Help Palestine achieve liberation through passive aid; and 2) increase China’s clout on the world stage.
China buys a shit ton of oil from Iran, which is coming under military attack from Israel seemingly regularly --Israel also had a hand in heightening civil unrest during recent riots (though iran’s regime is also brutal in its response – Israel openly admitted its agents were operating in the area during the unrest). China’s likely getting impacted by all the recent ‘shadow fleet’ oil tanker seizures. Israel is basically tied to the United States, a country that’s clearly antagonistic towards China. China also doesn’t really care that much about human rights / the welfare of individuals/people, as evidenced by things like the Uyghur situation.
So the thought that they’re doing it to ‘help palestine achieve liberation through passive aid’ is, I think, a nonsense reason that gets trotted out for potential PR reasons, maybe. Increasing their clout, I’d say is a very minor motivator: I don’t know anyone who’d deny China is a major power.
It’s a ‘generally good’ move they’re making for the people in that region, and for human dignity in general. But the reasons for taking this step, is not for the benefit of people in that region.
Agreed, the Iranian oil angle is a good analysis of a material reason for China to support Palestine.
When I say clout, I mean clout as a good actor on the world stage. China has to overcome decades of negative propaganda (some of which is based in truth, most is exaggerated or taken out of context, and some is outright fabricated). Actions like this promote China as an arbiter of peace and as a humane alternative to the naked barbarity of US/Western imperialism.
I don’t see why altruism can’t be a core motive for this move in addition to the strategic value. They are people, after all, who surely suffer as we do in the face of murdered Palestinian children.
Because it’s about as authentic a reason for China, as “Freeing Ukraine from Nazi’s” is for Russia.
So your argument is that nothing that China does is good because China bad? Not a lot of room for nuance in that worldview.
No, my basic argument is that it’s a ‘good’ thing generally for people in that area, but that it’s not done for their benefit.
Read the linked article. They aren’t selling the ban in any way as a humanitarian thing. It’s a ‘risk’ thing to do with the instability in the area, and (quite likely) the potential for the USA’s connections to Israel to disrupt any potential Chinese investment in the region.
All the attempts to make this sound like some humanitarian / progressive move on the part of china is bullshit injected by apologists in this thread. It’s not in the article, nor has China really made any big overtures related to human rights. And given the Uyghur situation, and the state of human rights in China, it’s pretty clear that they aren’t that bothered with that stuff.
You placed their motives in the opposite order