On Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. no longer held it a violation of international law for Jews to live or build houses on lands acquired by Israel during the Six-Day War. This opinion runs contrary to the stance of the Carter and Obama administrations, as well as that of most West European governments, but rests on a coherent and logical understanding of the law. Amnon Lord explains its significance:

[The American decision] is proof that standing tenaciously for years on solid and consistent legal ground ultimately ends in international recognition. If Israel had surrendered to the views of [its own] “new-wave” jurists, who created a propagandist and false presentation of the legal status of the territories in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, even the most supportive [U.S.] administration . . . wouldn’t have lifted a finger on the matter. From this perspective, anyone who has argued and expounded on this legal and historical position over the years in American, international, and local forums deserves credit for the Trump administration’s diplomatic revolution.

What’s needed now is the establishment of an Israeli government capable of providing significance and substance to the new American policy. The declaration further enhances Donald Trump’s policy, which he has been unfurling for three years now, whereby, the 1967 lines no longer represent a baseline for a future peace deal.

This new policy does not negate or supersede the possibility of a deal with the Palestinians; but at the same time, it also doesn’t prohibit Israel from possibly imposing its sovereignty over these strategic territories, which are so crucial to its security, or over specific settlement areas themselves. Israel’s Supreme Court also recognizes the legality of these communities.

The imperative for the country [now] is a national-unity or right-wing government capable of using this diplomatic gift. And it is a gift that in many ways is more important than moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

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.