Why does the UAE not respond to the frenzied media campaign?

Disagreement has never been a flaw in Arab or Islamic culture. On the contrary, when governed by reason and ethics, it has long been a source of richness and intellectual breadth. For centuries, Arabs have been familiar with what came to be known as Adab al-Ikhtilaf — the ethics of disagreement — a moral and behavioural code that predated the modern state. This code regulated relations among individuals, tribes, scholars, and rulers alike, providing a refined framework for managing differences without descending into hostility or moral excess.

At its core, Adab al-Ikhtilaf was not a form of superficial tolerance, but a comprehensive intellectual system grounded in good faith, respect for differing opinions, and the rejection of fanaticism. Most importantly, it emphasised refraining from transforming disagreement into personal vendettas or campaigns of defamation. Divergence — particularly in matters of interpretation and secondary judgments — was viewed as a healthy phenomenon that enriched thought, not as a battlefield for rivalry or score-settling.

Rhetorical degradation

From this perspective, the orchestrated media campaigns currently targeting the United Arab Emirates — led by Saudi actors and converging with accounts affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and networks resentful of the UAE’s developmental and scientific achievements — represent a stark departure from this ethical and political legacy. These campaigns bear none of the hallmarks of responsible disagreement; instead, they are characterised by defamation, distortion, and rhetorical degradation.

In reality, these campaigns are neither emotional nor spontaneous. They are organised and carefully managed, relying on the repetition of specific narratives and their intensive dissemination through infographics, hashtags, and shifting storylines dictated by well-known media “operations rooms.” They operate according to the logic of quantity rather than quality, and of saturation rather than credibility — where truth is not the governing principle, but rather the act of offense and reputational damage as an end in itself.

Absence of political strategy

Within this type of media warfare, coherent political strategy is conspicuously absent. In its place emerges deep anxiety, suppressed resentment, and an inability to manage disagreement with the rationality of statecraft. When argument fails and evidence disappears, noise becomes the only remaining tool.

If one of the central principles of the ethics of disagreement is intellectual integrity — seeking truth rather than personal victory — and moral composure that prevents hatred and division, then what we witness today is its complete opposite. Legitimate political debate has been transformed into crude demonisation campaigns, employing the lowest forms of discourse, particularly across social media platforms — most notably Twitter — where fake networks and electronic “troll armies” exploit well-known algorithms and increasingly exposed mechanisms of disinformation.

The UAE understands these mechanisms well and is fully aware of who stands behind them. Yet it has consciously chosen not to be drawn into this quagmire. This choice reflects neither weakness nor complacency, but rather adherence to what may be termed, in political and ethical jurisprudence, the jurisprudence of balancing interests: prioritising the public good, emphasising common ground, exercising tolerance in matters of interpretation, and refusing to escalate secondary disagreements into existential confrontations.

Allegations

The narratives promoted by these campaigns range from allegations concerning the UAE’s position in Yemen, to claims of threats to Saudi national security, eventually expanding to question the entirety of the UAE’s regional policies. What unites all these accusations is the absence of evidence, the fragility of argumentation, and reliance on insinuation rather than fact. For disagreement to be legitimate, it must be grounded in knowledge and proof — not in ignorance and deception.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this scene is the paradoxical convergence between Saudi actors who classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation domestically, yet find themselves aligned with it in an external media campaign. This contradiction yields no tangible political gain; rather, it exposes profound confusion in conflict management and undermines the credibility of the discourse itself.

Limited impact

Despite the intensity of the campaign, its tangible impact remains limited. It is largely confined to the social media sphere, with weak presence in reputable international journalism and an almost complete absence from Western and Asian media — except within narrow circles concerned with the Yemeni file. Politically, it has failed to mobilise influential actors, with engagement restricted to exhausted or marginal players lacking real weight.

At this juncture, disagreement shifts from being “legitimate difference” to a fully realised state of incivility — marked by sophistry, polemics, and antagonism aimed at dominance and visibility rather than the pursuit of solutions or political exits.

Harm for instigators

The inescapable truth is that these campaigns — with all their offensiveness and cheap rhetoric — harm their instigators more than they harm the UAE. They deepen rifts between societies, complicate prospects for de-escalation, and even disorient rational actors seeking to contain tensions. This is among the most dangerous traits of unrestrained media campaigns: they serve no clear political objective, instead accumulating losses and closing off avenues for resolution.

From here, the UAE’s decision not to respond directly can be understood as a wise and calculated choice, consistent with its ethical and political vision and aligned with its strategic decision to disengage from the Yemeni file. Descending into vulgar media brawls is unbefitting of a state that has built its image on stability, development, partnerships, and respect for sovereignty. Those who enter the arena of mud do not emerge unsoiled.

That said, it cannot be denied that many of these attacks have been painful — particularly when they originate from a neighbour or former ally. Yet harsh experiences reveal hidden intentions and help recalibrate priorities: reason first, not reaction.

Moral elevation

Moral elevation — not silence — is the chosen path. To present the UAE’s narrative as it truly is: balanced, rational, and clear. To defend it with facts rather than insults, with argument rather than vulgarity. Herein lies the responsibility of Emiratis — individuals, intellectuals, and opinion writers alike — to ensure that their discourse reflects the values of their state, not mere reactions to the provocations of others.

True strength does not lie in shouting, but in clarity of position. Confident states do not need imaginary battles to assert their presence. Thus the UAE remains: its ethics precede its rhetoric, and its positions are stronger than any fleeting campaign.