Rolling back Iran and punishing Hizballah are naturally in the U.S. interest, but is that something the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris is willing to acknowledge? She articulated her positions fairly clearly at the presidential debate on September 10: “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.” Michael Oren focuses on what she said next:

Israel can defend itself, Harris stated, “but how it does matters.” Israel can defend itself, but not if it prevents the achievement of a cease-fire in Gaza and the release of Israeli hostages. Israel can exist and preserve its existence, “but we must have a two-state solution, . . . where the Palestinians have security, self-determination, and the dignity they so rightly deserve.”

Harris’s remarks represented a new boilerplate and not only for moderate Democrats. In many sectors of America—indeed, throughout the West—recognition of Israel’s right to self-defense and sovereignty is now subject to a number of conditions. Few, if any, can be met. . . . No one can guarantee that [a Palestinian] state could, in fact, give security and dignity to its inhabitants or ensure that it won’t quickly deny security and dignity to its neighbors.

Those who condition their support for Israel on the conclusion of a cease-fire in Gaza and the establishment of Palestinian statehood risk reducing that support to meaningless. Still, the biggest “but” pertains to the way Israel defends itself. The implication is that, if Israel cannot defeat terrorists without causing large numbers of civilian casualties, it must be defenseless. “Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed,” the vice-president explained. “Children, mothers.” Since no one in Washington or elsewhere in the world can prescribe how an enemy that hides behind and beneath millions of civilians can be fought without causing collateral damage, this “but” effectively neuters the IDF.

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.