Bahrain’s move closely followed the United Arab Emirates’ naming of an ambassador to Israel after the two Gulf Arab states signed agreements last September to normalise ties with Israel in U.S.-brokered deals.

The three countries share common concerns about Iran.

UAE and Egypt are sister countries and long-time allies, who have survived challenging times together…

A new wave of claims about tensions arising between Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has re-appeared, after the Chairman of the Egyptian Suez Canal Authority (SCA) said, in January, that Egypt is closely watching the developments of the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline project between Israel and UAE. The project should enable UAE to export its crude oil via Israel’s Red Sea port Eilat to its Mediterranean port Ashkelon, and from there to Europe. This means that UAE and Israel could form an alternative route to transport Asian produced oil to Europe without having to go through the traditional route of Egypt’s Suez Canal.

SCA Chairman’s spontaneous statements were misinterpreted by media to appear that Egypt is concerned that this project may hurt the Egyptian economy. But this is not true. A quick look at the map shows how long, complicated, and risky the suggested route of the UAE-Israel oil project is. Even if the project is completed and all the risks are muted, it could hardly make a damage to Egypt’s economy. Oil transports represent barely 16% of total goods transported via the Suez Canal. Egypt, as a founding member of the EastMed Gas Organization, is emerging as a giant hub for gas production and distribution in the Mediterranean. In other words, in the near future, Egypt’s economy will not be dependent on the Suez Canal as the main source of income.

On the other hand, it is true that the policies adopted by Cairo and Abu Dhabi, in relation to their intervention in regional conflicts, have changed greatly over the past year. However, this does not mean that there is a rift or a separation between the two sister countries. On the contrary, their newly adopted policies are a sign of flexibility that would further strengthen their ties and refocus their forces for the good of the whole region, as has been the case in the past decade.

After the eruption of Arab Spring revolutions, in 2011, the UAE played an effective role in rebalancing the political stage in surviving Arab Spring countries. UAE’s effective involvement in handling the consequences of the Arab Spring revolutions was a sincere attempt to push against foreign interventions by Russia, Turkey, and Iran to exploit the chaos in these countries to their own benefit. During this time, UAE also played an effective role, along with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in combating political Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood group, who exploited the void in power in the countries surviving the Arab Spring to force their Islamist agenda on the expense of preserving the well-being of secular national states in these countries.

Last year, UAE made the unthinkable by convening a peace deal, known as the Abraham Accords, and normalizing social, political, and economic relations with Israel. This unprecedented move enabled UAE to break decades-long taboos in the dynamics of relations between MENA countries. Since the signing of Abraham Accords between Israel and UAE, last year, observers, especially in western media, did not spare an opportunity to claim that UAE is sidelining Egypt as a leading geopolitical power in MENA. Those claims have been renewed, recently, when the policies of Egypt and UAE regarding regional conflicts, especially in Libya and Yemen, have changed.

In fact, this is not the first time that media promotes such claims about a rift or a coldness in the relationship between Egypt and UAE. In 2015, for example, such claims were promoted after Egypt canceled a contract with an Emirati construction company to build governmental buildings in the New Capital project. But the truth is that such claims are mostly wrong.

Such claims insist on committing the mistake of portraying Egypt and UAE as adversaries competing over the leadership of the MENA region, rather than being partners cooperating to extinguish the infinite cluster of threats spread all over the ever-boiling region. UAE and Egypt are sister countries and long-time allies, who have survived challenging times together, including the dire aftermath of the Arab Spring revolutions and the rise of terrorist organizations in the Levant region. There has never been a rift between UAE and Egypt in the past and there will be no such rift, at least in the foreseeable future.

Piece first appeared on Egyldi.org.

They should start by unifying their leadership, agreeing on a road map to peace, and renouncing violence and terrorism.

I remember being in the US in early March 2017, soon after President Donald Trump was elected. At the time, Daesh’s presence in Syria and Iraq was the biggest geopolitical worry. During a meeting with the founder of a private equity firm I had just met — he had no particular interest in the region beyond security implications for his home country — we discussed this topic.

As the discussion went on, I explained the situation in Syria, the regime’s role, and delved into all the main issues in the Middle East and how they correlate, from Iran’s influence to the dangers of youth unemployment. Following about 10 minutes of me speaking, he interrupted and asked a simple question: So, what is the solution? I must admit that it caught me off guard and I was not able to answer for a good minute.

At that moment, I realized that we have been facing so many issues in the Middle East that we stopped thinking of solutions. The Arab world has become, from kindergarten onwards, a land of geopolitical experts, but we are all mostly like Western economists, who can explain a crisis after it happens but not find a solution or predict the next problem.

Discussing the Palestinian issue and the peace process is exactly like this. Many reasons can explain the situation, such as the failed peace initiatives, repeated mistakes by the Palestinians, the divisions in the leadership, etc. All of this and a bigger focus on domestic issues by citizens and leaderships in the Arab world have made the Palestinian situation a topic and less of a regional cause for which you search for a solution.

Therefore, the question I would like to start asking is not what is the solution, but what do the Palestinian leaders want? What do they consider a victory What is their objective?

Fatah does not want victory for its people, it wants to keep receiving subsidies — this is victory for its leaders. As for Hamas, it seems that its leaders are not looking for victory either. Despite their useless screams of destroying Israel, they know very well that they will never achieve this. What they aim to create is the concept of perpetual martyrs. It is not important for them to achieve for their people, it is important for them to keep the will of sacrifice going, and this means more Palestinians deaths, more misery and more losses. This line of thought resonates well with both the Iranian mullahs and the Ottoman brotherhood.

So, in this perspective, what is the solution for a better life for Palestinians? How do we make sure they can live in peace and security? How do we make sure Palestinian children have access to electricity, water, education, and health care? I cannot say I have the answer, but I can provide a beginning, which starts with accepting a new reality and adapting.

One thing I wish Palestinians would understand is that those who scream oppression, injustice, apartheid and call for the boycott of Israel on their behalf live comfortably and their children are safe and go to nice schools. They will move on and have a nice cappuccino with almond milk as soon as they are done writing their Facebook post in support of the Palestinian struggle. But they will do nothing for them.

All they do is make themselves feel better and grant themselves a judgmental status. Once again, this line of thoughts runs through the mullahs in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the left-wing movements in the West. All three claim to pursue equality and justice, but their leadership is strangely always more equal than others.

Palestinians should instead focus on the new reality that was first presented to them by Jared Kushner. I argued then that the Palestinians should accept the dialogue and seek to enhance, in the best possible way, what was originally offered — and this time take the deal. The deal was not about justice for the land but a better future and better lives: A new starting point with stability and peace.

At the time, I made a comparison between the Palestinian cause and what are known in the business world as zombie companies. A zombie company is one that no longer generates revenues but, instead of being shut down by its stakeholders, is kept alive and financed at a continuous loss. In that sense, the Palestinian cause has become a zombie cause.

However, prior to reaching an agreement with Israel — no matter what form it takes or however unfair or unjust it is — the Palestinians should start by unifying their leadership, agreeing on a road map to peace, and renouncing violence and terrorism. Unfortunately, if they were to choose Hamas’ road map, which refuses peace and whose stated objective is to destroy Israel, then they would end up even more isolated.

Not only would they be at odds with the Arab countries, but they would also continue to be the tools of the Iranians one day and the Turks another. Their suffering would not stop and would be traded as commodities by these powers.

At the time of Kushner’s deal, I was criticized by some for putting the obligation on the oppressed instead of the oppressor. My answer was clear: When, since the beginning of history, have we seen the oppressor, or the stronger party, forfeit what they acquired? And why would they?

In the current situation, I see no events that could change the balance of power to the advantage of the Palestinians and get them better conditions — not now or in the coming 50 years. All I see is a continuous downward trend that will only keep on accelerating.

After decades of unconditional support, each Arab country is now moving ahead in pursuit of its own national interests and those of its citizens. They have the right to do so and the Palestinians should do the same.

The Palestinians have been dealt awful cards; they have suffered and will continue to suffer if they do not adapt to the new reality. This is undeniable. Yet their leadership is misleading them. A courageous leader is one who speaks the truth to his people, who clearly states what is achievable, and ultimately gives a better life to his citizens and agrees to the best deal possible. It is time for the Palestinians to reset their objectives. The world is different, with wars being fought for data and cyberspace, hence a small land with bright minds and resolve can make Palestine unmissable.

The Palestinians have the power and capacity to do so. This should be the goal of their leadership: To create a land of entrepreneurs and free thinkers.
Unfortunately, for now, the main wind being blown at the Palestinians is extremism and socialism. These both present bad solutions and the wrong thoughts, but the misery and oppression in Palestine make it a fertile ground. This should also be understood by the US and the Israelis.

I doubt the current leadership is interested in finding a solution. It seems that Hamas is now focused on making a successful move into the West Bank with the support of Iran and/or Turkey. It is not in a hurry to make the lives of Palestinians better, but it is in a hurry to see the end of Fatah so that it can attempt to take over the West Bank. For Hamas, this is the solution, and it would also be a good one for the Israelis. Maybe Palestinians will change the game and look out for themselves.

Piece first published on Arab News.

Khaled Abou Zahr is CEO of Eurabia, a media and tech company. He is also the editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.