Why is Israel evacuating its employees and their families from UAE's diplomatic mission? Why is Abu Dhabi enraged with Israeli ambassador?
The NSC said in a statement, 'We are insisting on this travel warning because we know that terrorist organizations (Iranian, Hamas, Hezbollah and Global Jihad) are increasing their efforts to harm Israel.' Israeli officials have blamed recent military operations against Iran and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza for the increased threat. Officials have expressed concern that these factors could prompt retaliatory strikes. Why has threat level increased for Israeli citizens?
Security officials believe that anti-Israel provocations and the situation after the attack on Iran have increased the threat to Israeli citizens and their representatives abroad. The Israeli and UAE foreign ministries have not yet commented on the evacuation of Israeli mission staff. When were UAE-Israel relations established?
The relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates were normalized in 2020 through the US-brokered Abraham Accords led by Donald Trump. This was the first such agreement between Israel and an Arab country. Earlier, like other Arab countries, the UAE did not recognize Israel. Diplomatic contacts between the two were largely informal and limited. This normalization of relations between the two countries was historic, followed by the exchange of ambassadors, establishment of embassies and cooperation in various fields including trade, tourism and security. Since then, the activism of the Israeli and Jewish community has increased in the UAE. Why is UAE furious at Israeli ambassador?
The recent tension between Israel and the UAE began over Israeli ambassador Yossi Shelly, when Abu Dhabi expressed strong displeasure over one of his actions. Israeli media outlet Channel 12 News reported that Shelly crossed the red line in Abu Dhabi. According to the report, Shelly went to a bar with friends in Abu Dhabi where he behaved indecently. The report quoted the official as saying that he behaved indecently with women, which is very wrong. When the Emirati government came to know about the incident, it expressed deep displeasure with Israel in this regard. The incident was kept away from the media for several months and it is not clear whether any document of this exists or not.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
11 minutes ago
- India.com
Meet T-14 Armata Tank, super powerful war weapon offered by Russia to India, its features are..., Trump to...
New Delhi: US President Donald Trump is not happy with India and Russia's friendship and is threatening both countries with tariffs. Amidst this, the two countries are discussing a crucial defence deal that might further enrage Trump. What has Russia offered to India? Russia has offered to sell the next-generation T-14 Armata tanks to India to replace its ageing T-72 tanks with new tanks. Russia's offer includes domestic manufacturing in India under the Make in India programme. Armata tanks are made by the Russian company Uralvagonzavod, and the T-14 Armata is its most advanced tank. Uralvagonzavod has offered to design and develop this tank according to India's needs for its Next Generation Battle Tank (NGMBT) programme. For this, the Russian company has shown interest in partnering with Indian defence companies. What is the crux of the proposal? The proposal includes possible collaboration with India's Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) or other public sector defence units. The proposal is strategically prepared according to India's 'Make-I' procurement category, which aims to increase India's indigenous production. Under this plan, the Government of India provides up to 70% of the funding for developing prototypes, which emphasises domestic manufacturing and technology transfer. Will India buy the advanced T-14 Armata tank? Uralvagonzavod had signed a technology transfer agreement with India for T-90S tanks, which are now manufactured in India as T-90 Bhishma. India uses more than 83 per cent domestic technology in the T-90S tank, including complete localisation of the tank's engine. Russian officials have also expressed their intention to work with India for the local production of the T-14 Armata tank project. Company officials have suggested that the T-14 Armata would be an ideal successor to replace the Indian Army's huge but ageing fleet of T-72 tanks. Why is T-14 Armata considered one of the most advanced tanks in the world? The T-14 Armata is considered one of the most advanced tanks in the world. It has many remotely operated functions, an armoured capsule for the crew, a state-of-the-art digital control system and an active protection system (APS) called 'Afghanit'. This system is capable of destroying the enemy's anti-tank missiles on the way. Three operators can sit inside this tank and destroy the enemy's anti-tank missiles and RPGs in the air. It has a millimetre-wave radar, which provides 360-degree protection. Guided missiles can also be fired from this tank up to 8–10 kilometres. The maximum speed of this tank is 75 to 80 kilometres per hour, and its range is 500 kilometres. The weight of this tank is 55 tonnes, and its cost is around Rs 30 to 42 crore. If it is manufactured in India, its cost will be reduced by at least Rs 10 crore.
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Misunderstanding India's advocacy for multipolarity
A growing number of liberal American geopolitical analysts and Donald Trump, whom they despise, have a few things in common — they are opposed to India's relationship with Russia, its association with Brics, and advocacy for multipolarity. Trump's criticism of India is sharp and direct, of course. The Trump presidency will end in another three-and-a-half years, but this rare consensus in Washington DC, on India's search for multipolarity will remain. This is something, therefore, Indian strategic thinkers must reflect on. Put differently, with or without Trump around, India's advocacy for multipolarity will continue to haunt New Delhi, particularly given the structural transformations underway in the international system today. India's foreign policy is not about indecision. It is a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. (AFP) Let's begin by unpacking some important aspects of multipolarity, given its many layers of complexity and ambiguity. First, notwithstanding the general perception about the virtues of multipolarity, it is becoming somewhat clear that a multipolar world is not as pretty as we had imagined it to be. Even the imperfect multipolarity that we have today — with poles of various sizes and influence competing for power — seems messy, incoherent, confusing and hard to navigate. If this is what a system that is not even really multipolar looks like, what will a true multipolar system look like? Second, notwithstanding the messy nature of the quasi-multipolar order today, New Delhi remains committed to a multipolar world. The desire for multipolarity is deeply entrenched in India's tradition of non-alignment, which is one of the first principles of Indian foreign policy. When faced with a difficult choice, the first strategic instinct of political New Delhi is to be non-aligned, neutral, and multi-aligned. Mostly in that order. I would not view that as strategic escapism. It is very much part of the DNA of Indian foreign policy. It would also be wrong to mistake non-alignment (or a variation thereof) as not valuing friendships, loyalty or solidarity: In fact, India's foreign policy history is rich with examples of friendships, loyalty and solidarity. In that sense, India's foreign policy is not about indecision; it's a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. This is where the country's fascination with a multipolar world becomes crucial, for there is no genuine autonomy, balance and agency in world affairs without true multipolarity. Third, India's complaints about American unipolarity are on a steady decline, even as the rhetoric remains. It would be a mistake, however, to view New Delhi's rhetoric against unipolarity as merely, or primarily, directed against the US because today, New Delhi is less anxious about America's global unipolarity than a potential Chinese unipolarity in Asia. While America's declining global unipolarity is mostly a theoretical concern for New Delhi, the prospect of a China-led unipolar Asia is the true source of anxiety. In that sense, New Delhi's desire for multipolarity is also an attempt at ensuring the absence of a unipolar (China-dominated) Asia. Therefore, even if New Delhi is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia rather than US unipolarity globally, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow. There are two reasons why New Delhi would be concerned about China's unipolarity in Asia. One, this could mean that China might set the rules of geopolitical engagement in Asia. Once much of Asia falls under China's influence, it will be harder for New Delhi to push back Chinese hegemony. Two, a rise of Chinese unipolarity in Asia might prompt the US to think of accommodating China in a G2 format, especially if the American nativist and isolationist tendencies persist. In an ideal world, New Delhi's articulations must make a clear distinction between American unipolarity and Chinese attempts at unipolarity in Asia, but doing so is not easy for a variety of reasons, including that New Delhi continues to resist aspects of American unipolarity and is not yet willing to acknowledge the possibility of Chinese unipolarity in Asia. But New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony, without openly resisting the growing Chinese regional hegemony or a potentially unipolar Asia, could have unintended consequences. Some US administrations, especially the current one, might interpret India's rhetoric against American unipolarity as personal rather than an academic exercise, for the most part. This could prompt an unhappy Washington to undercut India's geopolitical standing in the region, thereby indirectly aiding China's attempts at regional hegemony. This creates a paradox: India aims to counter Chinese unipolarity in Asia by promoting global multipolarity, which annoys the US, prompting it to marginalise India in the region, thereby ultimately aiding Beijing's efforts to establish hegemony in Asia. New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony could also prompt the US, which is losing influence in various parts of the world, to seek ways of strengthening its influence in spaces where it can — this could lead to accepting Chinese unipolarity in Asia. More so, if the US reacts negatively towards India, as it is doing now, it could create a fertile ground for China and Russia to fan the Indian rhetoric against the US, encourage India to proactively participate in forums and arrangements aimed at undermining US unipolarity, and generate confusion within India's strategic community about the true motives behind India's multipolarity rhetoric. All of this will further drive the geopolitical wedge between New Delhi and Washington DC. There is no easy way out. New Delhi will need to have a lot more conversations and build trust with the US. That is not easy when a president like Trump occupies the White House. Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research and the editor of INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal.
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
India dismisses Fake News claiming govt reviewing list of US goods exempted from tariffs
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) fact-checking handle on Sunday dismissed a fake news which claimed that the Indian government is currently reviewing a list of US-made products exempted from the tariffs after US President Donald Trump announced 25 per cent tariffs plus a penalty on domestic exports to America from August 1. An X handle named 'China in English' claimed 'The Indian government begins reviewing the list of U.S. products exempted from tariffs… and declares: No privilege without mutual respect' However, MEA FactCheck, the official social media handle of the fact-checking arm of the Ministry of External Affairs on the social media platform X, said, "This is FAKE News!.' MEA FactCheck on Sunday, 3 August 2025, refuted the post on U.S. products exempted from tariffs on the social media platform X. The fact-checking account also debunked another 'fake news' report floating around social media in order to prevent the spread of further disinformation amongst the people through the platforms. MEA FactCheck also refuted the claim that the government is 'considering suspending or reviewing certain bilateral agreements with the United States if hostile economic policies continue.' 'Fake News Alert! This is FAKE News. No such statement made,' according to the post from MEA on Sunday, highlighting that no such statement was made by the Indian government. Last week, US President Donald Trump imposed 25% tariff on all imports from India along with some additional undisclosed penalties. Trump cited the Asian nation's high tariff rates and its relationship with Russia as being the 'vast majority' buyer of military equipment and crude oil. Later, Trump called out both India and Russia as 'dead economies' amid the ongoing trade talks with India. In a suo motu statement in both the houses of Parliament, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal said said, the government is examining the implications of these tariffs and is engaged with all stakeholders including exporters and industry for taking feedback of their assessment of the situation. "The government attaches the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, workers, entrepreneurs, exporters, MSMEs and all sections of industry. We will take all necessary steps to secure and advance our national interest," he said. The commerce minister also said that in just over a decade, India has rapidly transformed from being one of the fragile five to the fastest growing major economy in the world and it is also widely expected that India will become the third largest economy in a few years.
