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.
To begin with, you should use the word ‘claim’ rather than ‘assume’.
No I don’t. OP did when they hoped for increased militarism.
No I don’t. Foreign military adventures are not always imperialism.
You’re starting to get to what I was claiming, which is that unchecked power backed by ideology convinced of its moral, ethical or political superiority will eventually aim to spread itself, likely through violence, military or otherwise. Marxism is no different, and the implementation of it in China is not showing any moral superiority beyond what I’ve seen in history from any other soon to be superpower, colonial or otherwise. We’ll soon see how that plays out in Taiwan I’m sure, which will be the next example of China’s ‘beneficence’.
I admit I didn’t read anything past your three points because your first two interpretations of my claims didn’t impress me (so I’m not really interested in how you rebut the claims you made up) and moreover this entire exchange with everyone has been insulting and lacking in any good faith whatsoever so I’m disinclined to attempt further discussion with anyone.
I’m OP, and no I didn’t make that claim. I used “millitant” to refer to taking an active role, rather than a passive one. That’s why I said you assumed all intervention is violent based on my use of the word millitant.
But you did. You said millitant intervention leads to imperialism.
This is idealism, though, and is based more on the supernatural than the material. By claiming that no ideology can actually be genuinely anti-imperialist, you treat anti-imperialism as something unknowable, beyond the material, and therefore the realm of the supernatural. Materialism teaches us that there is nothing truly unknowable, while your reasoning relies on some grand “human spirit” to explain your insistence that ideology inevitably turns to imperialism.
And this is why your argument is getting correctly deconstructed by everyone, you aren’t actually listening and have made up your mind that you’re correct.
If you say so.
Great talk.
I like how you’ve left a dozen comments asserting that you have nothing left to say and the conversation is over, and then you just keep going while refusing to actually engage in the conversation.
Least bad faith shitlib