I did not envoke hypocricy. But the effects of the trade with China are direct all right. The money goes straight to developing and buying sophisticated weaponry, if not from Israel than elsewhere. And this weaponry will kill the American soldiers if the US chooses to interfere with the Chinese-Taiwanese conflict on the side of Taiwan (and I'm not even mentioning the long-term challenges). True, China can find other investment sources, let them, but let them not get money from us. And the problem with Israel can be fixed in half a jiffy, if the US government says it like it means it. Yes, the Israelis are desperate, but not crazy.
I agree with you in principal, on our trade with China. The difficulty with the practical means to living by that principal must overcome two different concurrent ideas that four administrations have practiced (counting the current one); they are: (1)that economic liberty will create the legal requirements, and the public sentiment towards the extablishment of greater political liberty and (2)if China would gain and advance equally as well from trade diverted to other nations (instead of the U.S.), then depriving China of trade with us deprives them China of nothing and only deprives our own companies, and our workers in those companies.
I, like you, do not think we have seen the beneficial trends in China's domestic politics that the two dominant policy ideas continue to believe will happen, in time. Those that have secured the policies based on those two ideas believe that our objectives should be to preserve the status quo in the China-Taiwan relationship, and the hoped for internal changes in China will eventually make the question moot.
I, like you, believe it is a race in which the chances are better than not that China will move against Taiwan, militarily, before (and possibly without ever) changing politically.
The problem is how to move, in practical ways, to demonstrate that the two dominant ideas are failing to achieve their objectives. Using examples alone only demonstrates that the ideas have not "yet" achieved their objectives, not that they will not, at some future date and our desire and attempts to make those declarations now are simply used, by China and in the U.S., to say that we are being "belligerent" because in fact China has not (yet) taken military action against Taiwan. These are very stubborn ideas to move directly against politically.
We are left with the realization that in all likelihood American policy towards China will not change until China in fact does attack Taiwan. If that is true, then our best policy is simply to prepare militarily as if it is inevitable, while the public continues with its stubborn majority support for the two dominant ideas that believe China "will change".