In 1990, Congress passed a law stating that the U.S. would not pay dues to any UN organization that granted recognition to a Palestinian state, absent a negotiated settlement with Israel. The law was triggered when the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized such a state in 2011. The State Department is now asking Congress to waive the prohibition—without repealing the law itself—and allow the transfer of funds to UNESCO. Elliott Abrams urges the legislature to hold firm:

[So far, the law has] worked: since the U.S. move in 2011, other key UN organizations have not followed UNESCO down the PLO’s preferred path. . . .

[T]he United States was out of UNESCO entirely from 1984 to 2003. Do you recall losing a lot of sleep over this? Can you name important world events that were affected by the American absence? [Furthermore], the administration’s argument that this is a UNESCO-only waiver that will not affect other bodies is ridiculous. Every other UN agency will see who blinked: not the UN but the Americans. The deterrent force of the 1990 law that threatens to cut off U.S. funding will be gutted.

The administration’s answer is to combine its UNESCO waiver with another new provision saying the waiver would lapse if the Palestinians get full membership in any other UN body. This is senseless. If we collapse on UNESCO, it will be assumed in the UN that we eventually will collapse on any other UN agency that admits “Palestine.” If it is important to stop UN agencies from admitting “Palestine,” we have the ideal tool in the 1990 law and should simply enforce it.

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.”