The United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) position on the Israel-Hamas war and its approach to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government is complex, nuanced, and fundamentally different from the countries previously discussed (like Malaysia or Ireland). It is defined by a strategic balancing act.
Here is a breakdown of what the UAE is saying and doing:
- The Foundation: The Abraham Accords
The cornerstone of the UAE’s position is the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreement it signed with Israel in 2020. This accord is a cornerstone of the UAE’s foreign policy, bringing significant diplomatic, security, technological, and economic benefits.
· Commitment to Normalization: The UAE has repeatedly and explicitly stated that it remains committed to the Accords. It sees long-term engagement with Israel as a strategic necessity for regional stability and its own economic diversification goals.
· A Different Channel: Unlike countries that have no relations with Israel, the UAE has direct, high-level diplomatic channels to the Israeli government, including Netanyahu’s office.
- Public Criticism and Diplomatic Pressure
While committed to its relationship with Israel, the UAE has been openly and strongly critical of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
· Language and Condemnation: UAE leaders and diplomats have used strong language. They have consistently condemned the killing of Palestinian civilians, called out “collective punishment,” and demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. They have voted for all relevant UN ceasefire resolutions.
· Direct Rebuke: In a notable instance, the UAE’s UN Ambassador, Lana Nusseibeh, publicly stated that Israel’s actions in Gaza risked dooming the normalization project for future generations, a clear warning to the Israeli government.
· Leveraging its Position: The UAE has used its position on the UN Security Council to amplify the Palestinian cause and push for diplomatic solutions. It was instrumental in negotiating the passage of resolutions to increase humanitarian aid flow into Gaza.
- What the UAE is NOT Doing
The UAE’s criticism has clear red lines that distinguish it from more confrontational states.
· No Severing of Ties: The UAE has not recalled its ambassador, suspended the Abraham Accords, or imposed sanctions. It believes engagement is more effective than isolation.
· Avoiding Extreme Rhetoric: The UAE leadership has not used incendiary terms like “genocide.” Its criticism, while strong, is framed within the context of international humanitarian law and the need for political dialogue.
· Not Supporting South Africa’s ICJ Case: The UAE has not endorsed or joined South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide. This aligns with its preference for diplomacy over legal confrontation.
- The Strategic “And” – Balancing Multiple Roles
The UAE is attempting to play multiple, seemingly contradictory, roles simultaneously:
- A Partner to Israel: Maintaining diplomatic and security ties.
- A Voice for Palestine: Using its influence to pressure Israel and advocate for Palestinian civilians.
- A Regional Humanitarian Leader: The UAE has been one of the largest providers of humanitarian aid to Gaza, operating field hospitals and tirelessly organizing aid airlifts and sea corridors.
- A Mediator: It has actively worked behind the scenes, often with Qatar and Egypt, to broker hostage deals and humanitarian pauses.
Summary: A Strategic, Two-Track Approach
The UAE is not saying “stop the war or we will cancel the Abraham Accords.” Instead, its message to Netanyahu’s government is more nuanced:
“We are your partner, but your military actions are unacceptable and counterproductive to our shared goal of long-term regional stability and integration. We will use our diplomatic weight to pressure you to change course, provide aid to alleviate the suffering you are causing, and work to ensure a political horizon for the Palestinians, all while maintaining our strategic relationship.”
In essence, the UAE is trying to leverage its relationship with Israel to moderate its behavior from within, rather than cutting ties and criticizing from the outside. This reflects the pragmatic, forward-looking, and strategically ambitious foreign policy championed by its leadership.