In 1956, Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl” ensured that the demonic figure of Moloch would be known even to those who are not careful readers of the Hebrew Bible. Generally assumed to be a Canaanite deity, Molech (as the name is spelled in Jewish Bibles) is mentioned in the book of Leviticus, which states, “thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech.” The Tanakh elsewhere refers to the same pagan ritual as “passing one’s son or daughter through a fire.” Both rabbinic commentators and modern scholars debate whether this is a reference to literal child sacrifice or symbolically passing a child over a flame.

Daniel Vainstub explores the archaeological evidence in support of the former view:

So far, no archaeological discovery has been found in . . . the Land of Israel or in the surrounding areas that points to human sacrifices. Nevertheless, extensive evidence of child sacrifice has been found in the western colonies of Phoenicia. . . . Phoenicians belonged to the Canaanite cultural sphere in all ways, including religion and language. The Canaanites who lived in these coastal city-states, especially Tyre, were powerful sailors, who established colonies on the Mediterranean shores.

Eight of these Punic colonies, [as they were known to the Romans], established in today’s Tunisia, Sicily, and Sardinia contain burial grounds for burnt remains of babies—ashes and charred bones. The children ranged from several days up to one year old, and their ashes were placed in jars used as urns, and buried in the ground. . . . Anthropological studies have shown that in all of them the babies were sacrificed in the same manner: they were laid on their backs on a pile of firewood in the open air before the fire was lit.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.