Examiner Editorial Desk
The question is no longer only about diplomatic relations, but whether economic and strategic partnerships can survive the moral and legal reckoning over Gaza
The devastation in Gaza has forced the world to confront a question that is as much moral as it is political: Can governments continue to deepen strategic and economic relations with Israel while Palestinians face mass death, displacement and destruction?
That question has acquired renewed significance in the Arab world following the continued engagement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The UAE and Israel established diplomatic relations under the Abraham Accords in 2020, opening the door to extensive diplomatic, economic and security cooperation. Their relationship has continued despite the catastrophic consequences of the Gaza war. In September 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed in Abu Dhabi, with the two sides discussing bilateral relations and regional issues.
For Palestinians watching the destruction of Gaza, such diplomatic engagement can appear profoundly difficult to reconcile with the scale of the suffering around them.
The issue, however, should not be reduced to religion. The victims in Gaza are overwhelmingly Palestinians, and the legal question before the international community is whether acts committed against the Palestinian population meet the definition of genocide under international law. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded in 2025 that Israeli authorities and security forces had committed and continued to commit genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza. Its findings included killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
In June 2026, the same UN commission reiterated its conclusion, saying the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children was among the factors supporting its finding of genocidal intent.
These are extraordinarily serious findings. They cannot be dismissed as merely another episode in the long-running political dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.
At the same time, the International Court of Justice has not yet issued a final judgment determining whether Israel is legally responsible for genocide in the case brought by South Africa. The proceedings remain ongoing. The Court has, however, issued provisional measures under the Genocide Convention, including orders requiring Israel to take measures to prevent acts within the convention’s scope and to facilitate humanitarian assistance.
This distinction matters. A responsible editorial should neither minimise the gravity of the allegations nor present an ongoing judicial proceeding as though a final judgment has already been delivered.
But the legal process does not absolve governments of their political and moral responsibilities.
The UAE, like other states, has the right to pursue its national interests. Diplomacy is rarely conducted on the basis of sentiment alone. Governments calculate security, trade, investment, technology and geopolitical influence. Yet foreign policy also carries consequences. When a government maintains close relations with a state accused by international investigators of committing genocide, it inevitably faces questions about where it draws the line between strategic interest and humanitarian responsibility.
The same question applies far beyond the UAE.
