Yehuda Amital (1924-2010), a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor, spent most of his career as the head of the Har Etzion yeshiva and became a leading figure in the Religious Zionist movement. In an analysis of Amital’s life, work, and thought, Reuven Ziegler and Yehudah Mirsky explain the notion of “humanity” (enoshiyut) that formed one of the “fundamental principles” of his theology. (Free registration required.)

[According to Amital, the] “worship of God, in whatever form, cannot wipe out simple human feeling.” As an example, he cites the obligation of a kohen [priest] to defile himself [ritually by attending a funeral] and mourn for close relatives despite his calling to serve in the Temple. Even Aaron, the high priest, who was not permitted to desist from his service, received Moses’ approval when he asserted that he still mourned his sons in his heart (Lev. 10:16–20).

Humanity further entails the recognition of fundamental human traits—human weakness and frailty prominently among them. This applies even to great individuals and extends to revered canonical figures, as we find them depicted both by the Tanakh and by the sages. . . .

This set of ideas is connected to another . . . : the importance of “naturalness” in the life of mitzvot. . . . On the one hand, the human ideal according to Judaism is not, as in some Eastern teachings, the attainment of tranquility, but rather perpetual aspiration, activity, and growth. Yet, on the other hand, excessive tension and anxiety in the worship of God is abnormal and counterproductive, often leading to paralysis. Fear of God should be natural, like fear of one’s parents. Similarly, prayer should be natural, a “conversation” with God. What is natural is not necessarily holy, but what is holy should be natural.

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.