I went on the fucking Israeli Amazon storefront, dipshit; it won’t even let me add them to my fucking cart. Please explain to me how they get the drones. I’ve even debunked my own fucking assumption in the process of trying to tease that process out of you.
Which Chinese drones can they get from Amazon? I just replied to you in another comment and showed that the AUTEL brand drones can’t be shipped to Israel via Amazon, and they have a statement on their website making it clear they will not ship them. https://hexbear.net/comment/6319426
DJI doesn’t appear to ship to Israel either and also has a statement on their website from 2022 about the use of their drones for military operations.
I really don’t care about the links and will not bother reading them as they contradict basic observations.
Oh, I’m sorry! Did I provide you evidence that there are no targeted bans on drones? Why do you think Ukraine can’t “buy drones from China” (again, a process you haven’t even explained)? Is it because they have no functioning economy and no semblance of an operating country because their territory is currently and actively being besieged? Is UPS supposed to roll up on the battle field and drop off a stack of DJI drones from a recently obliterated Amazon Warehouse directly to the Azov Battalion?
We live in a globalized capitalist economy; you could buy DJI drones right now and contact Zelenskyy directly and have them shipped to his doorstep tomorrow if you so wished.
Where does the IDF get their drones sourced from? Resellers? Direct partnerships with AUTEL? China has implemented global restrictions on selling drones and drone technology for the use as weapons. You continue to say that “China is selling drones to Israel,” but all you’ve shown is that Israel is acquiring Chinese drones; how they source them is important here, and you have yet to show how they source these drones. If they are sourcing them through third-party resellers internationally, then that’s obviously different compared to the claim that they’re getting them “from China,” which, again, you haven’t defined in any capacity. Amazon could be that third-party entity that facilitates getting around these export restrictions, which is why it’s relevant. The drones featured in the article you posted are easily acquired from Amazon.
You know, I decided to look at Amazon’s Israeli website, and they won’t even ship AUTEL drones to Israel.
So the question still stands: how does the IDF get the drones? According to Autel, they have banned the sale of their drones to the entire region. They’ve made two statements on the matter. Here:
China has banned export of commercial drones to Ukraine and Russia because they were being used as weapons.
You keep saying this, and I don’t understand why I’m the only one who sees this framing as bullshit. There are no targeted drone export bans; there are export restrictions on the entire drone industry in China.
This means that these export restrictions impact Israel as well.
These are global restrictions that impact the entire drone industry in every country. You can read the actual UAV restrictions on their own website. It does not specify any single country in the restriction.
The article makes it clear that these are commercial drones, not weapons. The IOF retrofits those drones with weapons. China should put them on the blacklist, but your framing is still not even supported by the article you posted.
You are editorializing the title of the article here, because the title on 972mag is “Israel enforcing Gaza evacuations with grenade-firing drones” or “‘Like a video game’: Israel enforcing Gaza evacuations with grenade-firing drones.” It isn’t until the byline that China is even mentioned. The bulk of this article isn’t about the role Chinese drone makers play here, but the conduct of the IDF.
You’ve selected some pretty choice paragraphs from this otherwise lengthy article to support this framing. But if you dug deeper into the links provided in the article, you’ll find information that provides more context on the claim that “In May, after China discovered that Ukraine was using commercial drones for military purposes, it banned their sale to the country.” This is a claim not made by any Chinese official, but, however, by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
But what does the article linked under the words “it banned their sale” say when we follow it?
Ukraine is finding it challenging to source drones and drone parts from Chinese suppliers due to new export control restrictions [emphasis mine] imposed by Beijing, new analysis suggests…
China sits in the middle of the drone supply chain and controls a majority share of the commercial drone industry as well as the supply of components. Beijing is now using its dominance of the supply chain for political gain, and perhaps to support the Kremlin, too. [emphasis mine]
In July, China introduced export controls, which went into effect on September 1, on certain types of drones and equipment in order to safeguard “national security and interests.” At the time, observers said the restrictions were a possible response to the trade war with the United States as Washington has tried to stop Beijing from accessing critical technologies such as next-generation semiconductors.
A report by The New York Times, published over the weekend, confirmed that China’s export controls instead had the effect of stopping Ukrainian forces from accessing commercial drones and drone equipment. The paper’s analysis of trade data and interviews with Ukrainian drone makers and suppliers revealed that Chinese companies had cut back on the sale of drones and drone parts.
It’s clear that China has not banned Ukraine’s access to the drones but instead applied “export control restrictions” on the export of drones and drone technology. According to Newsweek, The New York Times published a report that “confirmed that China’s export controls … had the effect of stopping Ukrainian forces from accessing commercial drones…” However, they do not link to this report from the NYTs. They do, however, provide a link under “export controls.”
The article is titled “China Has Hobbled Russia’s Drone Industry.” So, it would seem that this “export control” measure implemented by China is also impacting Russia and its use of drones. I’m not sure how this “support[s] the Kremlin…” as implied by Newsweek. Let’s see what they say:
Chinese export restrictions on key components for uncrewed vehicles are making it difficult for Moscow to produce military drones, according to a Russian state media report, which may hamper Vladimir Putin’s war effort in Ukraine.
New Chinese regulations brought in at the start of the month “seriously complicated drone deliveries to Russia and led to a shortage of a number of components, such as thermal imagers,” Kremlin-linked newspaper Kommersant reported on Monday.
In late August, China’s government said it was introducing export controls on some drones and related parts. The measures would affect some communications equipment, the engines and lasers used in drones, as well as counter-drone systems, the Chinese government said.
The restrictions would also impact consumer drones intended for military use, it was reported at the time, and drones with a flight time of more than 30 minutes…
Beijing’s ban on larger drones and some components needed to build uncrewed technology is “now a hotly debated topic” across Russian sectors and organizations involved with Moscow’s drone programs, according to Samuel Bendett, of the U.S.-based Center for Naval Analyses.
“The real impact of this ban on the Russian market mostly boils down to the jump in prices for existing and available Chinese drones in and components already in Russia,” Bendett told Newsweek on Monday. In the long term, Russia’s domestic drone industry could step in and replace Chinese imports, he suggested.
“This is a very interesting example of how China has a tight grip on the technology that make drones possible,” said U.K.-based drone expert Steve Wright. Drones need a “vast amount of electronics, and the Russians have tried, and failed, to develop an internal capability,” he told Newsweek.
“In short, the Chinese have stranglehold on much of the market,” for both Russia and Western countries, he added.
China’s ban is not currently affecting “small DJI-type drones,” Bendett added, referring to one of China’s best-known commercial drone giants.
So it would seem that these export controls have had a similar impact on Russia’s ability to use and produce drones. But these are all from 2023, so maybe things have changed? Here is an article from the Financial Times published this year: Chinese drone parts prices double as export controls bite.
Beijing has sought to regulate drone and parts exports to prevent their use in combat by other countries. In recent years, China has demanded exporters apply for special licences that many say are difficult to obtain, especially for component makers that export in smaller volumes.
In the past year, the government has increased the number of technologies subject to controls, while manufacturers and suppliers say enforcement has tightened in recent months as Trump threatened higher tariffs on China.
The restrictions, which apply to components with military and commercial applications, have made it difficult for global drone makers to source parts because few countries provide alternatives…
Khalil Esterhamlari, head of the Shenzhen-based China Iran Innovation and Cooperation Centre, said the strict customs scrutiny had forced him to cancel plans to help Iranian clients source firefighting drones. Nowadays, he is only able to export agricultural drones…
Zhao Yan, a representative for Shanxi Xitou UAV Intelligent Manufacturing, a state-owned exporter of military and commercial drones, said even legally exported drones could end up on battlefields.
“It is like a kitchen knife — we produce them for cutting vegetables, but whether they can be used for other purposes is determined by the buyer,” he said. “We sell our products to compliant buyers through compliant channels. As for what they use them for, we can’t decide.”
Let’s go back to the article from 972. What did they say about these drones being used by the IOF in the second paragraph?
Soldiers most commonly use EVO drones, produced by the Chinese company Autel, which are primarily intended for photography and cost around NIS 10,000 (approximately $3,000) on Amazon. However, with a military-issued attachment known internally as an “iron ball,” a hand grenade can be affixed to the drone and dropped with the push of a button to detonate on the ground. Today, the majority of Israeli military companies in Gaza use these drones.
It is entirely possible that these drones are being purchased out of a stockpile available from Amazon being held by resellers. That is pure speculation, but not outside the realm of possibility. What is clear, however, is that China has made the export of its drone technology increasingly difficult for all nation-states to import, hampering even its allies’ wartime industries. This ultimately does hinder Israel’s drone program as well, since China makes up 80% or more of the world drone market.
While we’re on the subject of China and Amazon, let’s look closer at both parties’ economic involvement in the genocide.
In a recent report released by UN human rights expert Francesca Albanese, entitled “From economy of occupation to economy of genocide,” there is one Chinese company listed, Bright Food (Group) Co., Ltd.
Amazon, however, is mentioned several times:
Could China be doing more regarding the genocide in Gaza? That I think we can all agree on. However, it seems clear to me that the global drone industry is suffering under these export controls, and short of fully killing the drone market in China, commercial drones are still going to be acquired by all wartime actors, by whatever means necessary. Israel’s drone warfare is predominantly supplied by its own national manufacturers and will seek to pivot to other sources as Chinese-made drones become more scarce.
Sometimes I wish there was an “abridged” version of stories like this, because this story really ends after the sentence “The Independent has requested comment from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security,” and after that it’s multiple paragraphs summarizing related details or history.
Capitalism is a global phenomenon, and India, England, and Ireland are not immune to it. Who do you think is actually going to benefit from a “cure for aging,” given the level of global inequality that exists in the world? Are the impoverished workers in the global south going to see the benefits of a “cure for aging” should one ever come around? How would such a cure even be distributed, and who will be responsible for distributing it? Surely it won’t be me or you. I mean, come now, look at what is going on in the UK with their relentless assault on the disabled. Globally, we can’t even distribute existing medical treatment in an equitable way! There are still massive COVID-19 outbreaks globally; countries in Africa are still being ravaged by it with very little access to necessary vaccines, still, 5 years on. When I say “our” democratically elected leaders, I am thinking globally. India is run by a bunch of “democratically elected” fascists currently. So is the UK, so is the USA, and there is a nice little far-right movement brewing in Ireland, isn’t there? How long until they become the dominant political force there?
These kinds of “developments” go one of two ways. They either become mothballed because they have no “viability in the market,” aka they’re not profitable, or they become priced so high and gatekept so thoroughly that the only people who can access them are those who sit in Elysium.
Oh cool, so the average age of Congress will be able to reach into the 100s now! Sick! I can’t wait to die on the job so our democratically elected leaders can watch over my kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids.
In sure this is very secure and good.
Hexbear would like you to read a book.
That’s why I make the Xi bucks.
They must be shitting their pants now.
It would not have mattered if they voted differently.
Good!