Both Qatar and Egypt have played critical roles as intermediaries in the still-ongoing hostage negotiations. On Saturday, when Hamas appeared close to reneging on its commitments, President Biden personally called the Qatari monarch and his prime minister to make sure that the releases continued. While Doha’s official statements claims that its goals are “to reduce tension, prevent escalation, protect civilian lives, respect international humanitarian law, and increase the flow of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza,” they are in fact much more sinister, as Seth Mandel writes:

Qatar is involved in the negotiations because it is Hamas’s bank and crisis-PR firm on retainer. It hosts Hamas leaders and gives the terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It is the “largest foreign donor to American universities,” which you may have noticed are pushing a distinctly rancid mix of Soviet and Hamas propaganda and passing it off as an academic discipline of “decolonization” studies, all while these campuses erupt with sometimes-violent rallies in support of Hamas. Qatar is also the disseminator of a hugely popular television station devoted entirely to the wishes of dictators and thugs.

Meanwhile, Qatar hosts a large U.S. air base (and the protection that offers). Its “major non-NATO ally” designation will only increase its military ties with the U.S. It is also a nontrivial trading partner.

Yet when we need the deals to get around a pothole, the Egyptians are still the next-door neighbors who will be personally participating in any relocation and thus have skin in the game. And when the Red Cross wanted to get word about hostages, it went to Iran. The Thai government did the same. Qatar will be allowed to continue its double game so long as the White House believes its usefulness offsets the damage it does to Western interests. Whether that is still the case gets murkier by the day, and the Biden administration should tell the Qataris as much.

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.”