There have been many negative narratives in Israeli mainstream media about the so-called "anger" of the UAE leaders over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attempted use of Abu Dhabi as a stop on his campaign trail. In fact, nothing of this was reported in the UAE media, which only emphasized that the visit was supposed to be a culmination of the Abraham Accords.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
There has been too much fuss – and perhaps misinterpretation – over statements by UAE officials, like Emirati Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash, who tweeted, "The purpose of the Abrahamic Accords is to provide a robust strategic foundation to foster peace and prosperity with the State of Israel and in the wider region. The UAE will not be a part in any internal electioneering in Israel, now or ever."
Such neutral assertions were used to promote the false narrative of a diplomatic crisis, whereas, in reality, they only emphasized the neutrality of the UAE, and the need to leave the accords out of the political game.
The UAE prepared for Netanyahu's meeting with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The purpose of this meeting was to determine the mechanisms for implementing the provisions of the agreement. There were numerous Emirati commentators who wrote in favor of the supposed visit, one of them was Dr. Salim Hamid, an Emirati writer and researcher who penned an opinion peace in Al Ittihad newspaper titled, Peace Train and Fruitful Encounters. The piece was published on March 13, two days after the visit had been cancelled.
Hamid explained in his article that peace with Israel is extremely important, and it requires developing full diplomatic relations in a way that delivers lasting peace and promotes a culture of coexistence.
When the leaders of the two countries do meet, it is known from what was stated in previous joint press conferences and meetings that this is a step towards making this a reality. This means that the Abraham Accords are not just ink on paper, rather they contain provisions that must be acted upon.
Hamid's article reflects the dominant positive approach towards Israel and the Abraham Accords among officials, public figures, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens, in general, and during the week of the so-called "crisis."
It was expected that in this meeting, actionable plans and mechanisms will be developed, and new innovative ideas will be presented. It is stated in Article Five of the accords that both parties will make agreements and investments in several areas, the most recent of which is the UAE announcement of a $10 billion fund for investments in Israel.
Through this fund, the UAE will invest in several sectors including energy, manufacturing, water, space, healthcare, and agrotech. The investment fund will support development initiatives to promote regional economic cooperation between the two countries.
In addition to the mutual economic benefits, there are also strategic objectives that participating countries will be able to meet through the Abraham Accords. Firstly, there are geopolitical priorities for those Gulf states that signed the Abraham Accords; Israel has aligned with these priorities in terms of opposition to the Iranian regime and its acquisition of nuclear weapons; and opposition to political Islam in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular.
Secondly, the UAE's approach in this peace treaty has been to expose those in the region who want to manipulate the Israel-Palestine dispute to further their own agendas. For instance, Turkey, and specifically President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has sought to exploit Palestinian grievances to further its influence in the region. Thirdly, the need for the Arab Gulf States to have Israel as an ally has never been greater in the face of both parties in the US calling for disengagement from the Middle East. This shift of US interest away from the region has prompted the UAE to engage in a peace process.
Moreover, the most important aspect of this meeting is its focus on warm peace, or people-to-people peace. So, this peace treaty has both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. History has taught us that when peace processes pass through a stage of stalemate, thinking outside the box can generate new approaches. As for this peace treaty, it is to halt the annexation of the West Bank in order to normalize and progress the peace process. This new model is different because it is not demanding a Palestinian state immediately, calling instead for a first step, which attempts to move Palestinians away from generations of violence and hatred and guide them towards using more reason and logic in solving the conflict.
The most hopeful thing about this new model comes from what was recently reported by several Jewish visitors to the UAE; that they feel more secure in the UAE than in most Western democracies in Europe and America. The Emirati delegation to Israel also reported that they saw Israel as a place of success and coexistence, contradicting how the country is misleadingly portrayed in the media.
None of this could have been imagined before the Abraham Accords, which proves normalization of relations is a prerequisite for solving the conflict, whether a two-state or federation solution is envisaged, not the other way round.
False narratives of diplomatic crisis and even "anger" are destructive. Using such narratives for political gain while we are still in the very beginning of the Abraham Accords, will have negative consequences on trust-building on both sides.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
