The Hypocrisy of the Emirates and the Boldness of Israel

By Dr. Omar A. Mannan

In the complex landscape of international politics, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel stand out as influential actors in the Middle East.

While both exert power beyond their borders, they differ sharply in how they pursue their interests and respond to international events.

These differences reveal contrasting diplomatic philosophies, strategic behaviors, and relationships with their own societies.

 *The UAE: Hypocrisy, Cunning, and Manipulation*

The UAE has cultivated a foreign policy built on indirect influence and calculated ambiguity. It relies heavily on economic power, using wealth as its primary diplomatic tool to buy loyalty, shape narratives, and influence political outcomes.

 Through a classic “carrot and stick” approach, Abu Dhabi forms alliances while avoiding direct accountability.

Central to this strategy is image management. The UAE works tirelessly to present itself as a benevolent, reformist, and peace-loving state, while its actions on the ground often contradict this image. It prefers to operate through intermediaries—regional actors, militias, or friendly governments—keeping its own role hidden behind the scenes.

This contradiction is evident in Sudan. Despite widespread international reports linking the UAE to the arming and financing of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Abu Dhabi consistently denies any involvement. At the same time, it donates generously to UN humanitarian programs for Sudan and funds international platforms discussing peace—effectively financing both the conflict and its supposed resolution.

The UAE’s insistence on participating in Sudanese peace processes, despite being rejected by both the Sudanese government and large segments of the population, further exposes this hypocrisy. Similar ambition was seen in its attempt to mediate the Russia–Ukraine war—less as a neutral broker and more as a bid for global relevance and legitimacy.

Israel: Audacity and Frankness

Israel, by contrast, practices a policy of directness and unapologetic realism. It openly defines its enemies, publicly defends its actions, and rarely hides behind intermediaries. Israel has repeatedly carried out military strikes in Syria and Lebanon and has openly acknowledged its operations against Iranian targets in the region.

Whether one agrees with Israel’s policies or not, its approach is characterized by clarity rather than disguise. Israel acts openly in defense of what it defines as its national security interests, accepting international criticism as the cost of strategic transparency.

The Core Difference:

Belief vs. Convenience

The fundamental difference between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv lies not only in tactics but in political identity.

Israel acts in alignment with its stated beliefs and national interests, regardless of international backlash. Its policies reflect a clear—if controversial—sense of purpose rooted in its internal political consensus.

The UAE, on the other hand, often acts against the values it publicly promotes and against the interests and sentiments of its own people. It markets itself as a force for peace and stability while simultaneously fueling conflicts through covert means.

 In pursuit of power and influence, Abu Dhabi trades principles for convenience and moral consistency for strategic gain.

Conclusion

The contrast between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv illustrates two fundamentally different models of power projection. The UAE relies on secrecy, manipulation, and financial leverage, while Israel relies on audacity, direct action, and political frankness.

Ironically, despite their vastly different approaches, both countries now rank among the most disliked nations globally—suggesting that neither hidden manipulation nor open force guarantees legitimacy or moral authority in today’s international system.

Understanding these differences is essential for policymakers, analysts, and observers seeking to make sense of Middle Eastern geopolitics and the evolving nature of global power.