The Israeli prime minister is scheduled to meet with the American president in Washington tomorrow. Parsing the various statements President Trump and members of his cabinet have made regarding Israel, Iran, the Palestinians, settlements, and the U.S. embassy, Elliott Abrams speculates about what will take place. The bottom line:

It is hard to believe that Netanyahu will be the only Israeli prime minister whom Trump will face, even if Trump serves only one term as president. The American embrace of Netanyahu will do him some good in Israel, but Netanyahu’s political fate . . . will not turn on his relations with Donald Trump. Nor will American policy turn on whether Netanyahu lasts one more year, or four: Trump seems tough on Iran, soft on Russia’s conduct in Syria, and favorable to an effort to work out some Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that emerges from Israeli-Arab negotiations. None of that will change no matter who is prime minister of Israel.

The good personal relations between Netanyahu and Trump are very helpful to Israeli-American relations. In the new administration we will not see members of the White House staff sniping and cursing at Netanyahu in public, and the word will go forth to cooperate closely at all levels of government. The United States will actively support Israel at the UN more than the Obama administration did. The [current administration’s likely] effort to improve Israel’s relations with Arab states is a tough but worthwhile one. But as Trump’s reversal on moving the embassy to Jerusalem “fairly quickly” shows, the issues Israel and the United States face together are extremely difficult ones; the failure to solve them in the past decades was due to their complexity, not to a lack of smart and dedicated officials trying their best.

Expect a terrific visit. Warm remarks. Hugs. Firm commitments. And then, back to work “studying” and “thinking” about the same intractable problems that have faced American and Israeli officials for decades.

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.”