In 1936, the German heavyweight boxer Max Schmeling faced off against Joe Louis at Yankee Stadium, in what became the first loss of Louis’s professional career. When the two fought again, in the same venue, two years later, spectators saw the match as a contest between a representative of a state that had embraced racism as its guiding principle, and an African American. But, writes Dean Karayanis—drawing on an interview with the veteran Jewish sportswriter Jerry Izenberg, who listened to the 1938 fight on the radio as a boy—Schmeling was hardly the avatar of Nazi Germany spectators on either side of the Atlantic imagined:

President Franklin Roosevelt, Mr. Izenberg said, “let it be known he had called Louis and said, ‘You’re fighting for America. You’ve got to do this,’ and Louis was ready to go.” He chuckles at the narrative now. “That’s according to the myth.”

Later, Mr. Izenberg got to know both men. “Schmeling,” he told me, “wasn’t fighting for Hitler. He was fighting because he beat this guy, [Louis], once. He was too old to win the title, everybody said, but he could win it now. That’s what motivated him.”

Schmeling, meanwhile, fought Hitler’s overtures to join the Nazi Party and on Kristallnacht, even hid two Jewish brothers in his apartment. “Max asked me several times over the years not to mention it, . . . not to ‘glorify’ him,” one of the brothers, Henri Lewin, said in 1989. “He told me that what he’d done for me and my brother Werner in 1938 was ‘doing the duty of a man.’”

After so much hype, the rematch ended just two minutes and four seconds into the first round. This time, it was Schmeling who was beaten into submission. When his trainer threw in the towel, America rejoiced, but the man they’d cast as a Nazi stooge carried no hard feelings. When Louis died in 1981, Schmeling was a pallbearer and helped pay for his funeral.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”