Domestic politics drive Abdullah and bin Zayed’s anti-Israel posturing

Jordan’s King Abdullah II and UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan held talks in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, using the occasion to issue sweeping condemnations of Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza. 

Both leaders rejected what they described as “Israeli annexation plans” in the West Bank and warned against the “displacement” of Gaza’s population.

Their statements, however, align closely with the rhetoric of Hamas, raising serious questions about whether these positions are designed more to placate domestic audiences than to reflect a constructive path forward.

King Abdullah II repeated his mantra that Jordan will never become a “substitute homeland” for Palestinians, an assertion that has become a political necessity for Amman. 

With more than 60% of Jordan’s population of Palestinian origin, the king is acutely aware of the internal unrest such issues could trigger. His “absolute refusal” of Israeli actions is therefore less a matter of foreign policy than a safeguard against domestic instability.

For his part, Mohammed bin Zayed—whose country normalized relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords in 2020—warned that any Israeli annexation of West Bank territory would cross a “red line.” 

Yet the UAE president’s warnings come across as posturing. Despite normalization, Abu Dhabi continues to balance its relationship with Israel against the sensitivities of Arab public opinion, particularly when Gaza is involved.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar responded sharply to the broader wave of recognition moves by Western governments, calling them “a huge mistake.” He warned that such recognition of a Palestinian “state” that does not legally exist would force Israel to take “unilateral measures.”

The timing of Abdullah’s and bin Zayed’s statements is telling. As Western governments like France and the UK float recognition of a Palestinian state, leaders in Amman and Abu Dhabi appear eager to appear in lockstep with popular Arab sentiment, even if it means echoing the propaganda narratives of Hamas.

Rather than advancing peace, these declarations risk entrenching positions and emboldening extremist groups that thrive on delegitimizing Israel. 

By framing Israel’s security measures as “annexation” or “permanent occupation,” Abdullah and bin Zayed are not offering solutions—they are amplifying the grievances that fuel instability.

In the end, these pronouncements serve a dual purpose: protecting domestic legitimacy at home and signaling solidarity with regional opinion, while doing little to foster the kind of pragmatic dialogue that could actually bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace.