Last Thursday, Tawadros II, pope of the Egypt-based Coptic church, came to Jerusalem—the first visit of a Coptic pope since the 19th century. The decision comes on the heels of Tawadros’ gradual easing of his predecessor’s ban on travel to Jerusalem, which has been in place since the Camp David accords. Samuel Tadros writes:

It is the dream of every Copt to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem before one’s death, and for centuries the Copts did. . . . The decision [to ban the pilgrimages] was purely political. . . . Many sins could be forgiven in the Arab world, [the previous pope] presumably reasoned, but visiting Israel is not one of them. . . .

Why did the [current] pope decide to go to Jerusalem? He must have known that he will pay a heavy political price for his decision. But since his ascension to the papacy, Tawadros has shown that once he is convinced of the soundness of a decision, he ignores its political costs. No matter what his calculus might have been, there is no turning back now. Next April, when it is time for pilgrimage, thousands of Copts will make the journey, no matter what the church says officially. Pope Tawadros’ short trip may not be as historic as [President Anwar] Sadat’s 1977 visit to Israel, but for Egypt’s Copts it may prove to be no less significant.

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.”