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.
I won’t pretend to have a solid grasp of this situation, but I think that it should be easy enough for anybody to acknowledge that the PRC’s trading with an apartheid state is not equivalent to Imperial America’s trading therewith.
To use one historic example: the ways wherein corporate America, the Dominion of Canada, Finland, the Kingdom of Italy, the Estado Novo, the Spanish State, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation, Turkish capitalists, occupied Palestine and the United Kingdom traded with the Third Reich were all vastly more consequential than Moscow’s negotiations with Berlin.
While it remains disappointing that Moscow traded with any dictatorships of the bourgeoisie at all, I’d be jumping to conclusions if I decided that it must have been because they all had the same interests. Were that the case, the relations between them would have always been much calmer, and nobody would have invaded the RSFSR. Therefore, I don’t feel comfortable concluding that Moscow traded with dictatorships of the bourgeoisie out of callosity, betrayal, or some other cynical explanation. A people’s republic trading with a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is another consequence of global capitalism, and resisting its pressure is easier said than done.
So yes, it is disappointing that Beijing is trading with an apartheid state, and no, no-one has to like it. Even so, there is no need to jump to conclusions here and conclude that Beijing is callous or suddenly has the same interests as Washington. The real explanation is more complex than both. My therapist used to tell me something to the effect that it’s best to walk a mile in someone’s shoes before passing judgment, and while I know that it sounds silly to apply personal advice like that to a geopolitical discussion, it is a good suggestion for beginners anyway. Above all, the PRC’s negotiations with an apartheid state are minor compared to the sheer amount of resources that the Western Bloc is pouring into this occupation.
That concludes my informal approach to this situation.