This article originally appeared in The Jerusalem Post, on January 28, 2026.
In recent weeks, a Saudi strategic influence campaign has targeted the United Arab Emirates. It brands Abu Dhabi with an Israeli-Abrahamic label: “Israeli Trojan horse,” “betrayal of God, His Messenger, and the nation,” “an Israeli project wearing an Arab cloak.”1 The language reveals the goal: to burn the legitimacy of a state that chose the Abraham Accords.
This raises the principled question: What is the content of an alliance? If a partner is attacked for being an “Abraham partner,” does the framework stand with it or stay silent? An alliance is measured not only in good times but in the readiness to stand together when costs arise. Otherwise, it is hard to see how the accords will endure or expand.
The attack uses the “Israeli” label as a weapon. When an ally is targeted because of the alliance, this is an opportunity to show what the Abraham Accords alliance means in the Middle East.
The new game: From camps to transactions
For years, the Middle East was explained by the well-known expression, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Today, that phrase is less relevant. The region has shifted from camps to transactions: It’s not “whose side are you on” but “what can you give me now.”
Security urgency, uncertainty about American guarantees, and economics as foreign policy are pushing aside ideology.2 In this reality, each actor can play in several plays simultaneously. If everything becomes an investment portfolio, value must be tangible and commitment to a partner must be clear.
The UAE, not Saudi Arabia, is the topic
Saudi Arabia is not the subject of this discussion. Regional circumstances have changed in ways that shift the focus from future expansion to proving the existing framework holds.
Three events have taken place simultaneously: Saudi Arabia is building a new security framework, including a mutual defense pact with Pakistan and discussions on Turkish expansion;3 the assumption that Israel is the “necessary gateway to Washington” has eroded as significant American components were offered to Riyadh without normalization;4 and Saudi-UAE rivalry is no longer a discrete point of dispute but rather a multi-arena competition.5
Saudi Arabia rejects any association with the Qatari-Turkish axis (and even Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood). For most Israelis who hope for peace with Riyadh, this leaves a spark of hope, alongside an open question: Why does Saudi Arabia countenance a discourse in opposition to the Abraham Accords? But as noted above, Saudi Arabia is not the subject here. The UAE is.
The door remains open. We hope Saudi Arabia will choose to enter.
The UAE: Heart of the story
The UAE is not just another partner. It is an anchor. It was the first actor to take political risk, sign, open the door for others, and build a partnership with Israel.6 In a world where many maneuver between transactions, Abu Dhabi did something rare: It chose a side and remained.
Even in the midst of the Israel-Hamas War, the UAE refrained from recalling its ambassadors, canceling flights to Israel, or freezing cooperation, despite massive pressure from the Arab world. In fact, the UAE even used the Abraham Accords framework to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza.7
To those who present alliance loyalty as a moral stain: In both Jewish and Islamic traditions, standing by an ally is a moral and religious duty.8 Precisely because of this loyalty, the UAE is the most convenient target for those who want to prove the Abraham framework offers no protection. If such a partner becomes a target and is left to stand alone, silence sends a message more dangerous than any headline: Don’t join.
What must be done
If the Abraham Accords are to remain an alliance, a framework that holds together under pressure and enables expansion, it will require operational mechanisms. Three elements:
- Coordination: A permanent Israel-UAE infrastructure activated during escalation: coordinated messaging, mapping pressure points, joint countermeasures. Not escalation against a third party; activating framework rules to protect a partner.
- Value: Visible proof the accords constitute an asset under pressure: intelligence, cyber, air defense, supply chains, and economic ties that withstand political storms. Without cumulative value, a framework is a gamble; with it, an asset.
- Commitment: A partner who chooses peace does not stand alone. Not a slogan but real-time public commitment and diplomatic cost for those who delegitimize partners.
The United States should join Israel in supporting all three principles. An alliance that proves it stands by its partners is an alliance worth joining.
The Trump administration, as founders of the Abraham Accords, has leverage: The American package promised to Riyadh can and should be conditioned on normalization. But leverage alone is not enough. Washington must also recognize that when it embraces Qatar and Turkey, states that lead anti-normalization campaigns, it is the UAE that pays the price.
The UAE has proven its commitment to the accords. This is an opportunity to show the same. And to Riyadh: The door remains open.
[1] Quotes from three identified Saudi commentators:
(a) Dr. Ahmed bin Othman al-Tuwajri, “The Emirates in Our Hearts,” al-Jazirah newspaper (Saudi Arabia), January 22, 2026 (al-jazirah.com). Original quotes: “حصان طروادة الإسرائيلي” (Israeli Trojan horse); “يا لها من خيانة لله ورسوله وللأمة بأسرها!” (What a betrayal of God, His Messenger, and the entire nation!). The article was briefly removed following international criticism (including ADL accusations of “antisemitic dog whistles”) but was restored, and attacks intensified. See: Shibley Telhami, X.
(b) Munif Ammash al-Harbi, Saudi writer and political researcher: “مشروع إسرائيلي يرتدي عباءة أبو ظبي” (An Israeli project wearing Abu Dhabi’s cloak) (arabi21.com).
(c) Salman al-Ansari, Saudi journalist and founder of SAPRAC: “كيف أقنعوكم بأن التحالف مع إسرائيل سيجعلكم قوة عظمى إقليمية؟ وكيف أقنعوكم بأن إسرائيل تحترم من يخون بني جلدته لإرضائها؟” (How did they convince you that an alliance with Israel would make you a regional superpower? And how did they convince you that Israel respects those who betray their own people to appease it?) (arabi21.com).
[2] See: “Turkish-Gulf Relations in the Context of Regional Reconciliation,” Arab Center Washington DC, October 2024. (arabcenterdc.org)
[3] Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) signed in Riyadh, September 17, 2025. See: “‘Muslim NATO’: Turkey in advanced talks to join Saudi-Pakistan mutual defense pact,” The Jerusalem Post, January 2026. (jpost.com). See also: “The Pakistan-Saudi-Turkey Axis: A Draft for a New Regional Order,” Modern Diplomacy, January 15, 2026. (moderndiplomacy.eu)
[4] Michael Ratney, CSIS, December 2025. (csis.org). See also: H.A. Hellyer, “The U.S.-Saudi Reconfiguration Is Real and It No Longer Depends on Israel,” War on the Rocks, December 5, 2025. (warontherocks.com)
[5] “Trump no longer demanding Saudis recognize Israel for nuclear deal with US,” Times of Israel, May 8, 2025. (timesofisrael.com)
[6] Bilateral Israel-UAE trade reached $3.2 billion in 2024, an 11% increase over 2023. See: “Money talks: Trade keeps Israel-UAE relations afloat despite Oct. 7 and Gaza war,” Times of Israel, February 21, 2025. (timesofisrael.com)
[7] Based on remarks by Amir Hayek, Israel’s first Ambassador to the UAE.
[8] In Judaism, the Torah commands keeping oaths and commitments: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall keep and perform” (Deuteronomy 23), “He shall not break his word” (Numbers 30), and the Sages emphasize loyalty even to an ally under pressure: “You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19). Biblical precedents like the Gibeonites teach that one must not abandon an ally even if the alliance aroused hostility. In Islam, the Quran emphasizes the sanctity of covenants: “O you who believe, fulfill your contracts” (Surah al-Ma’idah 5:1) and “Fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have made a covenant” (Surah al-Nahl 16:91). Commentators like al-Tabari explain this includes covenants with God, with people, and even between nations, and their violation is considered a moral and religious transgression. Thanks to Dr. Nesia Shemer for the religious context.
