That doesn't mean everything the company does is to support the objectives of the state, or approved by the state, but it does mean they're not unaffiliated either.
You can't conflate that with the company being an extension of the state though, as the GP did.
They're separate entities with separate objectives. A reasonable comparison would be to Lockheed Martin or Raytheon in the US.
Lockheed Martin is not going to sell to China right ? So saying say for example sales of weapops to Saudi Arabia used to kill civilians in Yemen is not supported by U.S. does not hold water. US also absolutely is responsible for any weapons being sold to countries with questionable government and human rights practices
In both cases they are complict and responsibile for failing to regulate adequately. Israel is additionally responsible as they are also shielding the company from being sued.