*Netanyahu and Bin Zayed: Convergence or Divergence? Capt Mohammed Hassan Eltahir

In the world of politics, interests intersect and visions intertwine, yet it is the subtle differences that often define the uniqueness of leaders. In this context, two prominent figures emerge:

– Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel,

– and Mohammed bin Zayed, President of the United Arab Emirates,

as pivotal actors in reshaping the map of alliances in the Middle East. So, are we witnessing:

– a convergence in vision,

– or a divergence in approach?

—

*Superlatives in the Qur’an: Moral Guidance, Not Political Supremacy*

Before delving into a comparison between the two men, it is essential to pause at a fundamental question:

– Do superlative forms appear in the Qur’an?

The answer is yes, but they are not used in the context of boasting or racial superiority. Rather, they serve as moral guidance, as in the verse:

– _“Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.”_

This sets the standard of distinction based on piety—not on race, chosen status, or political affiliation—marking a stark contrast with political rhetoric that may lean on claims of civilizational or religious superiority.

—

*Pragmatism and Strategic Alliances*

*Appreciation of the West and the Christian World:*

Both leaders deeply value their alliances with Europe and the Christian world—not merely for strategic interests, but also from a cultural and civilizational standpoint. Each sees the West as an indispensable partner in confronting regional challenges.

*Reciprocating Support and Acknowledging Favor:*

Netanyahu, in multiple speeches, has expressed gratitude to nations that supported Israel, affirming, “Whoever stands with us, we will stand with them”—even unconditionally, as in the case of Sudan.

Similarly, Bin Zayed is known for his appreciation of those who have stood by the UAE, consistently showing a willingness to return the favor as a gesture of political loyalty—even if that includes Sudan under Nimeiry or al-Burhan, especially when gold enters the equation.

*Clear Identification of Adversaries:*

Both leaders agree that the greatest threat lies in political Islam, whether

– Shiite (as in Iran),

– or Sunni extremism (as in the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS).

This clarity in identifying adversaries reflects a shared security vision, even if their methods of confrontation differ. And as the saying goes, “Cash settles the debate.”

—

*Discourse and Identity*

*Netanyahu’s Speech: Clarity and Consistency*

Netanyahu’s rhetoric is marked by consistency and clarity. He rarely shifts his positions and relies on a strong historical narrative—asserting the Jewish people’s rightful claim to religious and historical heritage. This type of discourse reinforces a sense of cohesion and identity among his base.

*Bin Zayed: Excessive Pragmatism?*

Conversely, Bin Zayed is sometimes criticized for adopting excessive pragmatism, to the point of compromising certain Arab or Islamic constants—particularly regarding normalization with Israel. The absence of a clear ideological framework leaves his policies open to varied interpretations. One might say his stance echoes, “We are more entitled to Moses than they are,” especially given that Islam does not recognize the concept of religious absolution.

—

*Conclusion*

Despite clear overlaps between Netanyahu and Bin Zayed in terms of security vision and international alliances, the differences in:

– cultural background,

– political discourse,

– and management of sensitive issues

make it difficult to claim a complete convergence. They are more like partners in a historical moment than replicas of the same model. Thus, differing destinies are to be expected—just as the fates of Goliath and Saul diverged. Especially in light of the Qur’anic verse: _“Indeed, the weakest of homes is the spider’s web.”_