'The Chinese government bans all new investment in Israel'
www.ynetnews.com
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
  • randomname@scribe.disroot.orgEnglish
    1·
    16 hours ago

    … since the outbreak of the war in Israel, Beijing has classified Israel as a “high-risk area” and imposed a ban on any new Chinese investments in the country.

    The South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based Chinese propaganda outlet, published just last week that China, Israel continue to collaborate in science and tech despite unrest in Gaza.

    While Beijing supports Palestine and has a fractious relationship with Tel Aviv’s closest ally, cutting-edge innovations keep them together.

    In a report published just now in February 2026, Lloyd’s Bank explicitly says,

    Chinese investment in Israel has grown rapidly in recent years, particularly in software, IT services and consumer electronics.

    Trade between China and Israel is also at an all-time high since the outbreak of the pandemic, and this hasn’t notably changed since the Gaza war (with Chinese exports to Israel have always been higher than imports from Israel, so Israel runs a trade deficit with China).

    It’s important to note that this Chinese Ballet Vision fund cites losses of its investment since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, and it seems this is the real issue here. China is heavily investing and trading with Israel. Nothing has changed.

    This is not much more than propaganda, the numbers paint a different picture. China-Israel business ties are stronger than ever, despite Gaza.

    [Edit typo.]

  • titanicx@lemmy.zip
    351·
    4 days ago

    So far China is batting a thousand this week. Earlier in the week they banned hidden car door handles for safety. Now they’re banning investment in a neo fascist society.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      11·
      3 days ago

      Israel’s highest imports come from China, and exports to the U.S.

      If China wanted Israel to stop what they were doing, they would have said stop or we’ll stop allowing sales to Israel, and Israel would have sit and stayed, or gone under.

      Definitely a move in a good direction in my mind though

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
    271·
    4 days ago

    The best time to ban all new investment on Israel was 1947 (this one I can excuse on the account of China not existing). The second best time was 1967. The third best time was 1973. The fourth best time was during the intifadas. The fifth best time was 2023. The sixth best time is now.

      • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        71·
        4 days ago

        I just found this post after scrolling down from an article about the PRC banning those stupid retractable car door handles that Tesla started, so that’s at least two.

        • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          311·
          4 days ago

          They also do much better than the USA at addressing homelessness and most provinces regularly raise their minimum wage tied to the cost of living. They also are the world leader in expansion of green energy and public transportation

        • Idreamofcheesy@lemmy.world
          534·
          4 days ago

          Genuinely curious, is there something wrong with them, or are they just mad they can’t replicate it as nicely?

          • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
            1·
            21 hours ago

            Genuinely curious, is there something wrong with them, or are they just mad they can’t replicate it as nicely?

            There’s a bunch of chinese car models that use the flush handles. Stuff that’s dumb when America does it remains dumb when China copies us.

          • ContriteErudite@lemmy.world
            34·
            4 days ago

            Mostly because flush electronic door handles aren’t as safe or reliable as non-retractable handles. They fail more often than their mechanical counterparts, especially in emergencies like crashes and fire.

          • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            221·
            4 days ago

            You know how normal handles are a pain to open if they ice over, because you have to pull really hard to break the ice? What if you just couldn’t open them at all because the tiny motor isn’t strong enough to give you something to grip?

            • DaMummy@hilariouschaos.comEnglish
              26·
              4 days ago

              So we can start car engines with the push of a remote button, we can open car windows with remotes, but doors are an issue? Are we absolutely sure we’re evolving in the right direction?

              • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
                14·
                4 days ago

                If your windows don’t open, you don’t burn to death when the stored energy equivalent of a couple hundred sticks of dynamite under you catches fire. Doors should ABSOLUTELY be obvious, direct, mechanical and reliable, and it’s INSANE we even have to have this discussion in 2026. This is Engineering 101 stuff.

          • altkey (he\him)@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            14·
            4 days ago

            Chinese EVs have a lot of friction entering new markets like EU so they can’t afford an obvious failure point that Pedon thinks he may get through with. They want to sell millions of cars and a possible scrutiny based on an arbitrary design decision is not a part they’d want in their plan. Being marked death traps, not by a model or manufacturer but as a producing country as a whole gonna hurt them a lot.

        • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
          192·
          4 days ago

          i just hate that is such a corrupt government, that people have no rights, that there’s a credit score that says if you’re allowed to own a home, that they can execute you in the streets, that they are trying to disappear ethnic minorities, no workers rights, no freedom of speech, their media is controlled by government cronnies, but enough talking about USA, what about big scary China?

  • wampus@lemmy.caEnglish
    524·
    4 days ago

    I’m fairly sure they’re doing this for political/strategic reasons. I’m also annoyed that it’s the most principled stance we’ve seen from a major country yet, even if the motives are a bit murky. But I was glad to read that.

    • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
      101·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • wampus@lemmy.caEnglish
        72·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          3·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • wampus@lemmy.caEnglish
            12·
            3 days ago

            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.

            • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
              3·
              3 days ago

              So your argument is that nothing that China does is good because China bad? Not a lot of room for nuance in that worldview.

              • wampus@lemmy.caEnglish
                13·
                3 days ago

                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.

      • fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml
        1·
        3 days ago

        After they ban all of the direct, existing investments in Israel, then yes, that would be a next move I would support. Hell, if they just sold (or threatened to sell) a large portion of the US Treasury bonds they hold, I imagine China could really put the screws on both imperialist, settler-colonial projects.

        I am not knowledgeable enough to know what the full ripple effects of such a sell off would be, but I imagine China would prefer to coordinate something like that (or wide-reaching sanctions) with other countries, rather than moving unilaterally. But Ra knows the US deserves to be sanctioned into the ground for their actions on the international stage.

  • TheSeveralJourneysOfReemus@lemmy.world
    44·
    4 days ago

    Some european or american user might be confused by the approach of the Chinese governement, but for most purposes a strong emphasis on the Chinese national culture and industry has been a pivot and a prerogative of the Chinese powers (going as back as the kingdoms) since the foundation of a central political insititution. In that regard the political and social culture of China are historically China-first. They essentially see the region as the center of the world. It’s in their name too. Trading globally is a tool for that principle too. Or do you think they wouldn’t prioritise their own area? They currently detain a third of new patents globally, for medical research alone, and it used to be next to none a few decades back.