The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has shown a clear determination to maintain its alliance with Israel, despite publicly criticising Tel Aviv over the Israeli strike on Doha, Qatar’s capital, and the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Israel’s recent strike in Doha has reopened the file of Emirati–Israeli relations: how far can Abu Dhabi continue its normalisation with Israel as the war in Gaza escalates and Israeli leaders openly push towards the annexation of the West Bank?
The latest developments reveal a widening contradiction: on one hand, symbolic Emirati criticism of Israel; on the other, a firm grip on the strategic framework of normalisation. This exposes the UAE to growing internal and regional pressure while reducing the long-term resilience of the partnership.
Angry Messages Without a Break
Abu Dhabi took unprecedented steps in publicly rebuking Israel: summoning the Israeli deputy ambassador to protest the strike on Doha and issuing statements that directly held Israel responsible for escalation and the undermining of mediation efforts.
Yet, despite the sharp tone, the UAE stopped short of any rupture or suspension of ties. The “minimum level” of partnership remains intact, and Emirati “anger” is carefully managed within boundaries that do not touch the political and economic structure of normalisation.
The UAE has also warned that annexing the West Bank would be a “red line” threatening the regional integration upon which the Abraham Accords were built. Symbolically, this warning is significant, especially amid Israel’s accelerating settlement expansion that already amounts to de facto annexation.
But the pressing question is: what will happen if Netanyahu’s government proceeds with annexation? So far, there are no concrete signs of Emirati measures, suggesting that the political cost of severing ties is higher than Abu Dhabi is willing to bear—despite annexation directly contradicting the UAE’s original justification for normalisation, which was to prevent it.
Limited Punitive Gestures
Blocking Israeli defence companies from participating in the Dubai Airshow appeared to be the most serious Emirati move in years. However, it remains a sector-specific and temporary measure that can be easily reversed once the storm subsides. It does not affect broader cooperation in technology, investment, or services. In essence, it is more a message of political pressure than a change in the rules of the game.
Meanwhile, Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza—which has killed tens of thousands—followed by its escalation into Qatar, has dramatically increased the moral and political costs for the UAE in the Arab and Islamic arena.
Across the region, public opinion sees Abu Dhabi’s insistence on normalisation—despite massacres in Gaza and looming annexation of the West Bank—as alignment with Israel’s aggressive expansionism. This undermines the UAE’s narrative of being a “bridge for peace and prosperity.”
Although Abu Dhabi has attempted to balance its image through aid and mediation efforts, the broader picture forces a redefinition of the “price” of its alliance with Israel.
Internal Fault Lines
Research points to internal differences within the federation regarding Israel: Dubai is more inclined towards maintaining commercial and technological openness, while Abu Dhabi projects more political caution, and other emirates show growing scepticism toward Tel Aviv’s privileges.
According to Middle East Eye, these differences do not constitute factional conflict but instead set practical limits: any Israeli move toward formal annexation will embarrass Emirati decision-makers who require internal and regional legitimacy to justify ongoing partnership.
One of the UAE’s biggest missteps is its separation of the Gaza file from the West Bank. In Gaza, Abu Dhabi often adopted “pragmatic” positions aligned with Washington—even when that meant entrenching Israel’s military domination—while retaining a warning tone on the West Bank.
This duality has weakened the collective Arab position calling for a comprehensive solution and has granted Israel greater manoeuvring space: tightening its grip on Gaza while consolidating its gains in the West Bank.
Reports also reveal Emirati pressure against unified Arab plans for the post-war phase, reinforcing perceptions that Abu Dhabi prefers arrangements keeping Gaza’s future outside a broad Arab consensus.
The very foundation upon which the UAE sold the Abraham Accords—“halting West Bank annexation”—is now eroding. Israel’s pledge to freeze annexation was only a temporary “grace period.” With settlement expansion back on the table, Abu Dhabi faces the burden of proving its stance.
As Emirati ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba admitted in 2021, the essence of the accords was tied to stopping annexation. Today, with Israel accelerating settlements, the UAE is under pressure to demonstrate tangible results—or else the agreement becomes a liability, used against it both domestically and regionally.
The Limits of the Partnership
The negative limits of the UAE–Israel partnership are increasingly clear:
- Lack of political leverage – The UAE has no effective tools to compel Israel to halt annexation or reduce its war machine, apart from warnings and symbolic sanctions.
- Reputation costs – Normalisation under fire severely damages the UAE’s standing in the Arab and Islamic world and places it at odds with widespread sympathy for Palestine.
- Undermining Arab unity – By pursuing individual deals and even pressuring against joint Arab plans, Abu Dhabi positions itself against collective Arab action, handing Israel more space to impose facts on the ground.
Thus, while the UAE clings to the strategic structure of normalisation—economics, technology, and security coordination—it now faces a narrowing ceiling on the moral and political survival of this partnership.
Observers note that Israel’s strike on Doha, its drive toward annexation, and its deteriorating global image push Abu Dhabi into a grey zone: calculated anger without rupture.
If Tel Aviv proceeds with formal annexation, the UAE will be forced to choose between two costs: a painful internal and regional political price, or a strategic cost of remaining tied to a partnership that increasingly strays from the “interests” used to justify the Abraham Accords in the first place.
In both scenarios, the UAE’s room for manoeuvre shrinks, and the limits of its controversial alliance with Israel become ever more apparent.
One Ummah. One platform. One mission.
Your support keeps it alive.
Click here to Donate & Fund your Islamic Independent Platform
