China accounts for less than 15% of Israel's goods imports when Hong Kong is included, and under 8% when HK is excluded which makes sense when analysing Chinese policy given Hong Kong's ongoing reunification and special status given it's history. China represents a marginal share of Israel's external circulation, not a structural pillar.

The composition confirms this marginality. Chinese exports to Israel are consumer goods, machinery, and electric vehicles. Israeli exports to China are diamonds, optical equipment, and declining semiconductor shipments. None of this touches Israel's core state capacities: intelligence, cyber warfare, military R&D, financial services. These sectors are integrated into US and EU capital circuits and protected by Washington's security architecture. Meanwhile China actively undermines Israeli comparative advantages: lab grown diamonds have crashed the natural diamond market that Israel depends on, and Chinese technological advances render Israeli service exports increasingly obsolete.

Also treating Israel as an autonomous actor ignores its position as a subordinate node in US imperialist command. Any unilateral Chinese rupture would trigger coordinated reprisals from Washington, Brussels, Tokyo. More dangerously, it would likely accelerate imperialist backing for separatist forces targeting China: increased funding for ETIM, intensified DPP militarization, and expanded intelligence sharing with reactionary forces on China's periphery. This is not speculation; it is the observed pattern of capitalist core discipline against any perceived deviation.

So long as the West secures Israel militarily and economically, symbolic sanctions have no material meaning. They only serve as a form of catharsis and moral posturing. They confuse form for content. The correct line is to utilize trade to develop productive forces, secure technological channels, and maintain strategic autonomy, while directing material support to the Axis of Resistance through separate circuits. This is not contradiction; it is dialectical coordination. Commercial engagement with a client state is not political endorsement when the broader anti imperialist front advances.

I await Israel's historical dissolution and wish China could adopt a more militant posture. But the current approach rests on concrete analysis of concrete conditions, not moral abstraction. Sound strategy proceeds from the balance of forces, not from voluntarist gestures that cede ground to capital.

Sometimes Mao was wrong. Mao also famously sided with the United States against the USSR, and supported the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam. His decision making on foreign policy was questionable to say the least.

While true in the broadest sense (70/30 etc etc). This account flattens a highly complex rupture. The Sino-Soviet split did not emerge simply from “Mao being wrong,” but from deep ideological, strategic, and state-to-state contradictions, especially Moscow’s increasingly paternal and subordinating posture toward Beijing, which sharpened tensions into an open break. It also ignores the substantial material and political support China gave Vietnam for years, particularly during the anti-imperialist struggle against the United States, and obscures the fact that some of the harshest and most distorted expressions of the anti-Soviet line in regional policy (such as the 1979 war) were developed and executed later, under Deng-era conditions, not simply under Mao himself. None of that means Mao was infallible, but it does mean the split and its consequences have to be understood as historically conditioned contradictions within the socialist camp, not reduced to an individualized story of irrational foreign-policy error.

Edit: I forgot to mention I fully support BDS because its material strength lies in severing Israel from the imperial core’s reproduction networks. The movement functions by making institutional cooperation economically and politically untenable within the metropole, where financial integration, military supply chains, and diplomatic cover actually sustain the settler colonial apparatus. Applying that same tactic to China inverts the concrete conditions. Beijing’s commercial ties represent a marginal civilian fraction of Israel’s external circulation. Severing them would be simply performative moral purity while leaving imperialist command structures untouched. It would also most likely trigger coordinated capital redirection and systemic reprisals from Washington and its allied blocs, punishing Chinese strategic autonomy and hardening imperialist discipline. Different positions in the global division of labor require different methods of struggle. Backing mass boycotts in the core while the resistance and its support maintain calibrated trade channels reflects in my eyes a correct reading of where Israel actually draws its lifeblood.