336
'The Chinese government bans all new investment in Israel' (www.ynetnews.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Members of Kibbutz Hanita near Israel’s northern border are demanding $11 million from Ballet Vision, the Chinese fund that controls 80% of the Hanita Lenses plant, accusing it of refusing to exercise an option to purchase the kibbutz’s remaining shares, according to a lawsuit filed in Tel Aviv District Court.

In a response letter attached to the lawsuit, the Chinese fund said that 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, making it impossible to carry out the option.

According to the lawsuit, in 2021 the kibbutz sold 74% of Hanita Lenses, which manufactures intraocular lenses for medical use, to Ballet Vision for $35 million. Of that sum, $25 million was paid to kibbutz members, with an additional $10 million injected into the company.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Because after all the negativity and bad faith, and given the fact that we're all talking past each other, I'm trying to decide if I care enough to attempt to back up and actually try to understand and/or come to a point of mutual perceived benefit.

And frankly I care much less if the person is notat the very least within my sphere of interest from a political and economic point of view. If the ideas they're espousing have not chance of being implemented where I live, I care much, much less about who they are or what they think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago*

    This Canadian chauvinism is really weird.

    The internet is international. If you don't want to talk to non-Canadians, go outside and talk to your neighbors. The internet is not for you because most people on most websites aren't Canadian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Communists control the world's largest economy by PPP, so I'd say you should at least learn a bit more about what we have to say. I recommend starting with the subject of dialectical materialism. Maurice Cornforth's Materialism and the Dialectical Method is a good intro! It especially helps explain some of the problems I have with your arguments relying on idealism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    I'm not saying we don't need to interact with them but economic size doesn't tell me anything about their moral, ethical or political stance.

    And I would suggest that pointing to a book describing political ideology as a means to justify how a political ideology is not subject to the same compulsions as every other human political organization has in recorded history - and indeed how China has in modern history - is the very definition of idealism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    The economic size and success of China means you should probably try to see why they do what they do. As for the book, no, idealism is the belief in supernatural explanations for phenomena, intentionally or not. It is opposed to materialism.

    The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:

    1. Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual.
    2. Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)
    3. Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, "above," or "beyond," or "behind" what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.

    The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:

    1. Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.
    2. Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.
    3. Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.

    When I called your arguments "idealist," I meant it because of your habit of using "human nature," or vibes, as a method of explanation, as well as treating phenomena as unknowable. When I linked Cornforth's book (which I stole the 3 aspects of idealism and materialism from), it's so you can study the reasoning behind the communist perspective and why it is different from past philosophies, and not subject to the same failings.

    Further, I highly disagree with your take on China. It's too vague to directly answer, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Good lord man. I'm not having a philosophical discussion about idealism and materialism.

    I'm not religious and I don't believe in the supernatural, if you need to know. I'm by training an engineer, physicist and mathematician.

    I also don't believe that any ideological system can approach perfection, and I'm pragmatic enough to understand that if you believe that, it is borderline delusional.

    I don't think China has a perfect society and I expect I would not be happy there. I'm perfectly happy here with 3 kids, my pets, my wife (who owns a small business), a modest house and a family cottage, on a decent salaried job, in a country with a reasonable approximation of universal health care (I wish it were better), that makes attempts at regulating the excesses of capitalism with social programs and government oversight, that gives some freedoms in respect of rights, that values individual liberty and doesn't get in your business on everything, that doesn't overwhelmingly exert its will outside of its territory, that allows me to build a small consulting business and occasionally rent our cottage, that has a proud military history of which I have taken a small part, that is open to immigrants and ranks very high on multiculturalism and low on racism, that has enormous economic potential with one of the most educated populations in the world, that ranks highly in press freedom, democracy and economic mobility.

    My country has problems, but you're not going to convince me that I'd be better off under a government like China, or a Marxist ideal, even if I thought it would be possible to change this country without enormous violent upheaval in which, very likely, members of my family or friends would suffer and die.

    And as I've tried to say since my very first words on this topic, you're not going to convince me that a government organized according to Marxist thought will be - unlike every other human organization in history (that is, not ideal, but in practice and based on historical evidence and experience) - somehow a utopia that is incapable of oppressing people or attempting to exert its will on others who do not consent to it.

    Having said all of that, my claims are clear. What is your objective in this discussion? Of what are you trying to convince me?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Good lord man. I’m not having a philosophical discussion about idealism and materialism.

    But we are. We are specifically talking about ideology, how it relates to the PRC, and your own thought process.

    I’m not religious and I don’t believe in the supernatural, if you need to know. I’m by training and engineer, physicist and mathematician.

    And yet you use supernatural explanation by treating phenomena as unknowable, ie not a part of the material realm, and appeal to a vague "human spirit."

    I also don’t believe that any ideological system can approach perfection, and I’m pragmatic enough to understand that if you believe that, it is borderline delusional.

    This is what I mean. You are appealing to the idea that no ideology can correctly understand the world and help us understand it better. Your own ideology is idealist.

    I don’t think China has a perfect society and I expect I would not be happy there. I’m perfectly happy here with 3 kids, my pets, my wife (who owns a small business), a modest house and a family cottage, on a decent salaried job, in a country with a reasonable approximation of universal health care (I wish it were better), that makes attempts at regulating the excesses of capitalism with social programs and government oversight, that gives some freedoms in respect of rights, that values individual liberty and doesn’t get in your business on everything, that doesn’t overwhelmingly exert its will outside of its territory, that allows me to build a small consulting business and occasionally rent our cottage, that has a proud military history of which I have taken a small part, that is open to immigrants and ranks very high on multiculturalism and low on racism, that has enormous economic potential with one of the most educated populations in the world, that ranks highly in press freedom, democracy and economic mobility.

    You live in an imperialist settler-colony as a well-off person married to a business owner. Your own class outlook is forcing you to see the world through a specific lense, and is pushing you towards idealism. You're a labor aristocrat married to a petite bourgeois, and an occasional landlord.

    My country has problems, but you’re not going to convince me that I’d be better off under a government like China, or a Marxist ideal, even if I thought it would be possible to change this country without enormous violent upheaval in which, very likely, members of my family or friends would suffer and die.

    You probably wouldn't be better off, personally, but the global south would be better off without Canada imperializing it of its surplus value and resources. Your class interest has made you hostile to working class, internationalist perspectives. This is your own, idealist philosophy.

    And as I’ve tried to say since my very first words on this topic, you’re not going to convince me that a government organized according to Marxist thought will be - unlike every other human organization in history (that is, not ideal, but in practice and based on historical evidence and experience) - somehow a utopia that is incapable of oppressing people or attempting to exert its will on others who do not consent to it.

    I have never said Marxists cannot oppress people, just that Marxism-Leninism is anti-imperialist, and that fighting imperialists is a good thing. Landlords, the bourgeoisie, etc would be oppressed by Marxist governments as their property is collectivized.

    Having said all of that, my claims are clear. What is your objective in this discussion? Of what are you trying to convince me?

    I suppose I am trying to convince you to become a class traitor and side with the working classes, or highlight for other working class folks the flaws in idealist thinking that you display.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent