In recent years, many leftists have criticized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and other BRICS countries for “refusing” to sanction the so-called “State of Israel.”
Rejection of unilateral sanctions
Often, critics point to the “billion-dollar trade relationship” between China and “Israel.” Of course, they will fail to mention that China is also Iran’s top trade partner.
China has long opposed the use of unilateral sanctions such as those used by the USA and EU, which have no basis in international law and routinely violate the important concepts of sovereign equality, non‑intervention, and human rights obligations. Or, in other words, China refuses to engage in hegemonic bullying.
China does not sanction entire countries; typically, sanctions will only be placed upon individuals (e.g., foreign government officials or lawmakers), organizations (e.g., think tanks or NGOs), or companies (e.g., defense contractors selling to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces and refusing to uphold the One China principle).
In the case of “Israel,” China has “restricted economic activities in small, extremely high-risk areas” in line with international law. Domestically, according to Reuters, China had previously banned several American and “Israeli” companies, citing cybersecurity concerns.
Peaceful co-existence with capitalist states, non-interference in other states’ affairs
There is as well an ideological reason for this supposed “failure” to sanction “Israel.” China remains a developing nation in the primary stage of building socialism in one country and closely adheres to the concept of peaceful co-existence.
China’s Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence include (1) mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, (2) mutual non-aggression, (3) non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, (4) equality and mutual benefit, and (5) peaceful co-existence. This stands in contrast to the Trotskyite idea of a so-called “permanent revolution” around the world.
On state recognition and stated support for the “two-state solution”
The only true criticisms that can be made against China on this topic are (1) their recognition of “Israel” as a state as well as (2) their stated support for the so-called “two-state solution.”
In regard to both criticisms, it is worth noting that China upholds and adheres to the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and does not seek to impose its will upon the world.
On the issue of state recognition, China, especially under General Secretary Xi Jinping, stands for peace and diplomacy. If China does not recognize “Israel,” there is little opportunity for dialogue.
On the second point, it is possible China may see the “two-state solution” as a way to shine a light on “Israel’s” refusal to adhere to the 1967 borders typically associated with this “solution,” much like Comrade Lenin’s idea that Communists may participate in bourgeois elections to prove their futility.1
In most regards, there is already a “two-state solution” in effect right now. While many have suggested this “solution” could lead to peace, this is a ridiculous notion, and China likely understands this. While a two-state reality would theoretically bring peace, at least temporarily, it is clear “Israel” has no desire to uphold it.
Continued diplomatic support for Palestine through legal channels
As such, China has also supported Palestine through diplomatic means. China has refused to label Palestine’s Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and similar groups as terrorist organizations, which has infuriated “Israel” in the past. China does not accept the idea that the Palestinian-“Israeli” conflict began on October 7th.
In February 2024, Ma Xinmin, Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Foreign Ministry and former Chinese ambassador to Sudan, asserted at the International Court of Justice (ICJ):
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict stems from Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel’s long-standing oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israeli oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent State on the occupied territories are, essentially, just actions for restoring their legitimate rights. The right to self-determination serves as the precise legal foundation for their struggle.
The Palestinian people, being a group residing in territory under foreign domination, is a sui generis international legal person as a whole. The right to self-determination of the Palestinian people has been consistently reaffirmed in multiple United Nations resolutions and the Wall Advisory Opinion. This is also widely recognized by most States and international organizations.
Citing international law, he asserted:
The Palestinian people enjoy the right to self-determination, which includes five main aspects: first, the right to preserve territorial integrity; second, the right to maintain national unity, that is, the Palestinian people, in its group identity, collectively enjoys and exercises the right to self-determination; third, the right to freely determine their political status; fourth, the right to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; fifth, the right to permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources.
Every State is obliged to promote the realization of the right to self-determination and to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples of that right. In their pursuit of the right to self-determination, these peoples have the right to engage in struggles, seek and receive support. On the basis of that right, the Palestinian people declared the establishment of the State of Palestine in 1988, which has been recognized by over 130 countries.
In November 2025, China also backed Russia’s proposal for Palestine at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which would have prioritized Palestinian sovereignty, statehood, and self-governance, as well as their right to historic Palestinian land. This proposal, which was in opposition to Trump’s “peace plan,” was ultimately rejected.
Regardless of Westerners’ erroneous ideas, the bonds between China and Palestinian, Iranian resistance remains unbreakable
It is no secret that China retains good relations with Iran. A Chinese delegation was present at the recent funeral of the martyred Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated by American forces in late February 2026.
Further, according to Western sources such as the UK’s The Independent, Hamas has allegedly used “Chinese weaponry, including assault rifles and grenade launchers,” though the article questions whether this is a direct China-Hamas link or if the weaponry was received indirectly (e.g., through Iran).
Of course, this is not to say that there are no Zionists in China. No nation is monolithic, let alone one with a population of over 1.4 billion. While the large majority of the Chinese nation supports the struggle for Palestinian liberation, there remain some, such as Chinese Zionist Christians, who are stuck in a backward way of thinking.
Additionally, many Taiwan residents have erroneously decided to support “Israel” due to the Taiwan authorities' decision to offer propagandistic, pro-Western education in China's Taiwan province as well as “Israel's” pinkwashing through Pride events (Taiwan has a sizable LGBT+ community). Chairman Mao had recognized back in 1965:
Imperialism is afraid of China and of the Arabs. Israel and Formosa [Taiwan] are bases of imperialism in Asia. You are the gate of the great continent and we are the rear. They created Israel for you, and Formosa for us.
Regardless of the small number of Chinese who have been led astray, the Chinese nation’s support for the Palestinian struggle for liberation will never end.
As Chairman Mao said in 1964, we must “unite and defeat the US aggressors and all their running dogs … dare to fight, defy difficulties, and advance wave upon wave. Then the whole world will belong to the People. Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed.”
Long live the People’s Republic of China!
Long live the Palestinian people!
Glory to the martyrs!
Please see my response to criticism of this idea below:
This is such a cope. It ignores (1) Israel's increased restrictions in the past decade on Chinese investment (especially from SOEs) in sensitive areas like tech and infrastructure, and (2) American pressure on Israel to reject Chinese FDI in those same sectors (Haifa port, desalination plant, Tel Aviv light rail). If China had its way, Chinese FDI in Israel would be higher than it is.
You write that "China does not sanction entire countries; typically, sanctions will only be placed upon individuals (e.g., foreign government officials or lawmakers), organizations (e.g., think tanks or NGOs), or companies (e.g., defense contractors selling to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces and refusing to uphold the One China principle)." So where are the sanctions on Israeli individuals, organizations, or companies? I'm talking about sanctions that aren't motivated by China's own national security concerns, but by solidarity with Palestinians.
You write: "In the case of “Israel,” China has “restricted economic activities in small, extremely high-risk areas” in line with international law." Read the press release you cite. These restrictions are just on the Gaza border, which is obviously about the dangers of operating next to Gaza, not about "international law."
You cite China's principle of "mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity" for its but under international law, this would not extend to areas outside of the 1967 borders. What's stopping them from imposing sanctions West Bank settlements in the name of "respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity"?
China just doesn't care about Palestinians. It's not doing some 3D chess move.
China supports the Palestinian people’s right to statehood while continuing to treat Israel as a sovereign state with which diplomatic and economic relations must be maintained. China’s policy is shaped by its position on international law, the pursuit of stability in the Middle East, commercial interests, and great-power strategy—not by revolutionary solidarity alone.