For the past few years, China has made clear that it favors the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel. And since October 7, its conduct has become more overtly hostile. Assaf Orion, Roy Ben Tzur, and Ofir Dayan explain:

Not only have President Xi and other official spokespersons defined Israeli policy as “collective punishment,” but China has not even officially condemned the murder and wounding of Chinese citizens by Hamas terrorists. Instead, China maintains direct contacts with Hamas, which it does not see as a terrorist organization.

In contrast to China’s blatant avoidance of addressing Hamas’s terrorist atrocities and its victims in Israel, Taiwan has clearly and openly supported Israel since the start of the war, by expressing solidarity and by offering concrete assistance. Even on the day of the massacre, the Taiwanese Foreign Ministry was among the first in the world to condemn Hamas.

Taiwan’s determined stance is in keeping with its wider strategic interests and with its democratic values, and it strives to reinforce alliances with like-minded countries—liberal democracies.

At the same time, the war has shown historically pro-Western Arab states, which have been building stronger ties with China over the past several years, that Beijing can do little to allay their immediate security concerns—while Israel and the U.S. can do much more.

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.