Josephus, before becoming the great Jewish historian of the first century, led Jewish rebels against the Romans in defense of Jerusalem. But after the battle was lost, he surrendered to the Romans and won the favor of Rome, living out the rest of his life there as a successful writer. His story has led many to see him as a traitor to his people and his work as thinly disguised Roman propaganda. William den Hollander argues that this reading is mistaken (free registration required):

One of the key contributors to the negative assessment of Josephus’ character, which has also affected the manner in which his narratives have been read, has been the scholarly and popular misunderstanding of his relationship with the Roman generals/emperors. The traditional view has been that Josephus served as an imperial lackey and that his writings, in particular the Jewish War, were nothing more than works of propaganda advancing the interests of the imperial throne. Since the early 1980s, however, this view has been increasingly questioned by experts. By close examination of his narratives and careful contextualization of Josephus and his writings within ancient society, scholars have begun to recognize that his relationship with the emperors was not quite as close as had been assumed (or, perhaps, as close as Josephus wished to have us believe) and that, furthermore, his narratives do not quite fit the characteristic of propaganda. In fact, they are at times quite the opposite.

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.