It’s all very dialectical

You’re reducing complex geopolitical economy to moral abstractions. That is idealism, not material analysis. In material terms we must look at who wields economic power, who sustains whom, and what the objective effects of policies are, not just rhetorical labels like “support” detached from underlying forces.

First, trade figures show China is far from Israel’s largest overall economic partner. The European Union collectively is Israel’s biggest trading partner and investor, with two-way trade far exceeding that with China, and the United States close behind as a top buyer of Israeli exports and major source of arms and aid. Even at its peak, China’s goods trade with Israel has lagged EU and U.S. trade by a tens of billions. This undercuts any simplistic assertion that China “kept Israel’s economy afloat.” In objective material terms, the core economic sustenance of the Zionist entity (particularly in military and strategic sectors) comes from U.S. military aid and deep EU investment, not Chinese commerce. The U.S. alone supplies billions annually in military financing and decades of cumulative assistance, dwarfing what trade volumes ever could.

Second, China’s engagement with Israel historically centered on goods imports and technology exchange, not the strategic military-industrial entanglement that the U.S. maintains. China imported Israeli tech components and sold consumer and industrial goods, this was not tantamount to subsidizing Israeli military, such as how the U.S. does through direct financing, arms sales, and joint defense programs. That is a key material distinction: trade in goods does not equal direct military support.

Third, because China understood the material logic of maintaining leverage and strategic space, it has taken concerted steps that undermine key Israeli economic advantages, such as aggressively promoting synthetic and lab-grown diamonds instead of natural stones (hitting a major sector of the Israeli economy) and cultivating alternatives to Israeli or Western software and tech dominance. These are strategic moves that weaken the Zionist entity’s economic rents, not bolster them.

Fourth, China’s broader Middle East policy must be understood dialectically. China purchased over 90% of Iran’s oil exports helping them bypass sanctions, provided advanced defensive and satellite technology that materially increased Iran’s capacity to resist U.S./Israeli military pressure, and brokered regional normalization between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is not symbolic “support”; it is material backing of states opposed to Zionist and U.S. imperialist aims. China’s trade with Israel existed alongside, and was in my opinion very much overshadowed by, its substantial strategic backing of Iran and the axis of resistance.

Fifth, material conditions show economic warfare alone on Israel would be materially ineffective absent damaging its key backers. Israel’s economy and war machine are sustained predominantly by U.S. military aid and deep EU economic ties. Even if China had unilaterally cut trade earlier, without the collapse of those major partners, the structural economic base of the Zionist state would remain intact.

Finally, openly hostile confrontation with Israel by China, beyond pragmatic criticism and measured pressure, risks serious regional escalation. Israel is a U.S. client state with deep military integration into U.S. regional architecture; an overt break would risk drawing in U.S. strategic responses and destabilizing broader anti-imperialist projects in the region. The material balance of forces does not support unilateral isolation of Israel by China alone without risking wider conflict. That risk is not something to be ignored in strategy.

China’s engagement with Israel was a contradictory policy driven by economic and strategic interests. Its trade never equated to primary economic support comparable to U.S. military aid or EU investment. China’s material support for Iran and other resistance forces, its moves to undercut Israeli economic advantages, and its avoidance of outright military confrontation all reflect real power dynamics. Simplifying this to moral binaries ignores the underlying imperialist structures that actually sustain the Zionist state.

The CPC allowing trade with the Zionist entity was bad but people always treat it like they were supporting them and seem to forget that the axis of resistance was also massively funded and supplied by them at the same time.

They’re too used to dealing with the burger Reich where not maximizing shareholder value at the expense of all else is a crime.

The glasses unfortunately do have cool uses for disabled people. There’s a lot of research going on at a university near me about implementing LLMs and vision AI into them to provide the likes of real time subtitles for the hearing impaired and realtime environment description for the visually impaired. They absolutely should be regulated into the ground in their current iteration as creep glasses though.

The smallest transistors currently in production are the intel 18A which have a gate length of 18 angstroms or 1.8nanometers.

However this is more of a naming convention than actual size as transistors have moved off planar design for a while now as FINFETS and GAA transistors became the norm.

The smallest planar transistors are around 22nm which would give you around 450,000 stacked end to end in one cm. This doesn’t take into consideration buffer devices or any proper layout procedure.

I however don’t think that’s the core breakthrough here. It’s more about it’s durability seemingly.

A crisis is when "the poors"^TM can afford housing.

Building shared skills for shared growth with BRI partners

Li Mingliang (executive director of the Belt and Road Tianjin Strategic Research Institute and professor at the School of International Business of Tianjin Foreign Studies University) on how the Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly driven by vocational education cooperation, with China exporting skills training to partner countries to support employment and industrial development, while stressing that future success depends on deeper localization, stronger integration, and adaptation to digital and green technology.

You just don’t understand, the tyranny of bedtime is the greatest tyranny of all.

Harry Potterism or StarWars Syndrome

Houses are for speculation not for living —JDPON DON

You are right, the United States is still the world’s dominant military superpower overall, but that’s not really relevant to this specific point. In this specific case (the Sentinel ICBM versus comparable Chinese missiles) it is clearly behind. The reasons vary as you rightly pointed out: rigid doctrine, arms-control treaty legacies, extreme cost inflation, industrial constraints, and political limits on mobility and basing. All of that matters for why the gap exists, but it does not change the material outcome. China fields newer, more advanced, more survivable, more flexible systems designed for modern strategic conditions, while the US is spending almost unimaginable sums to preserve an increasingly vulnerable fixed-silo model and continue to enrich defense company shareholders.

So this missile is costing $150B+ to develop, wont even enter production until 2029 and will probably be $200M+ per unit and it is less advanced than the DF-41 from 2017 not to mind China’s full missile ecosystem or the new DF-61?

Beautiful gambit from the Amerikkkans.

It’s been a farce. If you want a sort of sad laugh check the NATOpedia list of designated terrorist orgs and ctrl+f Israel.

Isn’t it over 1/2 read at the level of an 11yo or lower? and slightly more than 1/5 are functionally illiterate?

The Peoples Cop*

They’re going to be so mad when they get up their and realize the one real religion died out a thousand years ago.

As if “international law” was ever anything more than a shield for imperialism and a club to beat the global south.

True I did more of a paraphrase than translate. Overall a very cute happy story even if the implications are less so.

is the least these people deserve