Severe though the ongoing wave of terror may be, argues Boaz Ganor, it does not merit the term intifada (Arabic for “uprising”), since—compared with the first and second intifadas—there have been relatively few perpetrators and victims. Rather, he writes, it is a peculiarly Palestinian manifestation of a global phenomenon:

In the current wave of terror, we are dealing with self-initiated and locally initiated attacks. The term “lone wolf,” [however], is too narrow to include the characteristics of the phenomenon, as is the phrase “attacks by [isolated] individuals.” . . .

[The motivation for these attacks is rooted in] a deep hatred of Israel, personal and social frustration, despair over the national and economic situation, and generational conflict. (Attacks are often an assault on parental authority in general, or on the father’s authority in particular.)

All of these are channeled at a particular moment and under the influence of deliberate and prolonged incitement into an act considered by the terrorists themselves and many members of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim society to be an admirable expression of altruism, patriotism, and religious devotion.

In most cases, it is not a momentary whim or crazy emotional outburst [that precipitates an attack], but rather an informed personal or group decision that crystallizes over time. In many cases, the decision is the result of subjective cost-benefit considerations. In other cases, it is a response to an urge for adventure wrapped in an attractive cloak of altruism and patriotism.

The terrorists are not necessarily different from young Muslims in the West who . . . decide to join a group of foreign fighters in conflict zones or carry out self-initiated or locally initiated terrorist attacks in their own country (such as Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who carried out the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, in 2015).

This phenomenon . . . currently threatens the entire world.

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.”