On October 23, the former president Barack Obama issued a statement about the Israel-Hamas war, which sidelined anti-Semitism, ignored Iran’s role in supporting Hamas, and in other ways offset its nobler sentiments. He recently elaborated further on the subject in a public appearance hosted by a group of his former aids, emphasizing the “complexity” of the situation. In other words, he went on, “what Hamas did was horrific, and there is no justification for it. And what is also true is that the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable.” Tellingly, his audience applauded after the first part of that statement, but not after the second. Abe Greenwald comments:

Barack Obama hasn’t commented on many serious matters since he left the White House. . . . But he’s now got a message that he needs to get out. Obama is concerned that we don’t forget about supposed Israeli cruelty to Palestinians just because Hamas massacred nearly 1,500 innocents in Israel. . . Never mind that Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza and pulled out in 2005.

Obama speaks in stentorian generalities because details expose truth. And in this case, the truth is simple: it’s Hamas’s fault. All of it, the terrorism, the Palestinian trauma, the current war, and the deaths to come.

But Obama doesn’t do details. He’s fancies himself a big-idea kinda guy. And his big idea is that we’re all to blame. “You have to admit that nobody’s hands are clean,” he said, “that all of us are complicit to some degree.” . . . Self-congratulation as self-doubt is also vintage Obama.

It’s big of him to shoulder the blame along with the rest of us. And in repayment for his generosity, I offer a few words to help him out in his soul searching on this issue: President Obama, perhaps you shouldn’t have chosen as the crowning goal of your foreign policy the enrichment and legitimization of Iran, Hamas’s chief benefactor.

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.