Having conducted a major poll of American Jewish voters and their political opinions, Jesse Arm sorts through the results. Unsurprisingly, Jews still favor the Democrats; however, Arm writes, even Jewish Democrats are growing uncomfortable with their party:

The Democratic advantage among Jewish voters has been consistently slipping in recent presidential election cycles, and Harris is on track for the narrowest margin of victory with Jewish voters (+36 percent) of any candidate since Michael Dukakis in 1988 (+29 percent).

Despite their overall Democratic lean, Jewish voters are more likely to report high levels of concern over growing anti-Semitism in the Democratic party than within the Republican party. “Security, Israel, and anti-Semitism” are Harris’s weakest issue relative to former President Donald Trump among Jewish voters. Many are likely uncomfortable with the Democratic party’s tolerance of voices that criticize Israel in extreme terms, such as labeling the country “genocidal.” This is evidenced by the fact that Jews are almost universally supportive of Israel—a mere 5 percent of Jewish voters say they are not supporters of the Jewish state.

While Jewish voters are strongly aligned with Democrats on the issue of abortion—even a majority of Jewish Republicans describe themselves as generally pro-choice—their views on immigration and fiscal issues don’t match either party. . . . On crime, Jewish voters more closely align with Republicans and feel the nation’s criminal-justice system is not tough enough.

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.