Why should anyone expect China to turn into interventionist-style diplomacy, USA-style but communist?

It does seem like this is essentially what some people want China to be, without considering the resulting ramifications or required logistics. Whether we like it or not, that does not appear to be the path they have planned for and they do appear to be big on planning, so why would they throw away plans and try to rush into a different direction that they haven’t planned for? It’s their careful planning and manufacturing positioning that has made them so powerful to begin with; this within a globally anti-communist, capitalist world order led by the western empire. They’ve been building and transitioning for decades. They don’t benefit from destruction in the way that imperialism and capitalist led order does. Capitalism and imperialism can work together to level a whole region and then swoop in to profit off of rebuilding it and create tendrils of control in that rebuilding process, and the west has done this before. China’s socialist mode rejects such a process, instead trying to form mutually beneficial ties, so they don’t have a motive to court hot war the way imperialist nations do.

In other words, what I’m trying to get at is part of the reason the US is willing to act “interventionist” in the first place is because it can profit off of doing so, even if the process to get there involves millions of deaths and infrastructure in ruins. Socialist projects are going to be much more reluctant for the common humane cause reason that they don’t want more death and destruction.

Still, China has intervened before in history when the conflict was close enough, in Korea. But that was also a much closer (geographically) existential threat. Trying to intervene more directly in Palestine might win them praise from the same kind of people who praise Che Guevara and reject Fidel Castro, but I don’t think they are positioned well at this stage to accomplish much in that form. They don’t have hundreds of military bases from which to stage global interventionist operations. They could do more in the form of cutting trade ties, but this practice also means isolating themselves more in trade and manufacturing power, which is the main form of leverage they have in anti-imperialism outside of being ready for hot war, if it comes to that.

Like say they cut all trade ties with israel. Okay, but the US is what’s funding israel, so shouldn’t they cut trade ties with the US too? And what of the EU NATO members who also play a part in it? Should they cut trade ties with them as well? What about all of the comprador states that serve the western empire? Where does it end? China decades ago chose the path of “dealing with the devil” (roughly speaking) in order to shift the global balance of power and so far it seems to be working. It doesn’t mean they directly support what imperialism is doing. It means they’re working through the contradictions of engaging with global capitalism while trying to build local socialism, in order to shift the form of the world order away from empire. Until the empire has declined sufficiently that is less of an existential military threat, I don’t see how they can logistically do much intervening beyond diplomacy without isolating themselves.

I don’t expect this to be a permanent state for them to be in. It’s all about transition and it’s just nightmarish that things have escalated against Palestine while the multi-polar world order is still finding its feet. As I write this, I am thinking it is possible that this is the very rising shift the zionists fear and this is part of why they’re trying to escalate, but they are overextending even as they genocide and court wars in the rest of the region; they displayed this when they picked a direct fight with Iran. A multi-polar world order led by a communist vanguard party government cannot, in the long-term, accommodate a lawless colonial project, whose existence is fixated on endless wars and expansion.