The article explores how the UAE funded the Israeli penetration system in Sudan and Gaza, highlighting the intricate relationship between investment strategies and geopolitical maneuvers. The “Abraham Accords,” presented as a political settlement in 2020, concealed a more pragmatic vision rooted in the economic peace doctrine of Shimon Peres. By understanding the impact of these investments on both regional stability and technological advancement, we uncover the layers behind the UAE’s strategic engagements in conflict zones such as Sudan and Gaza.
Strategic Goals Behind the Abraham Accords
When the “Abraham Accords” were signed in 2020, they represented more than just a political agreement; they symbolized the advent of a new era for peace and economic prosperity in the Middle East. However, this public rhetoric masked an older, more pragmatic worldview shaped by the economic peace doctrine advocated by Shimon Peres. This doctrine views peace not as a moral objective in itself but as a means to reengineer the region by integrating Gulf capital with Israeli technology. This vision did not cease with Peres’s passing; it was inherited by his son, Noam Peres, who merged his roles at the “Peres Center for Peace and Innovation” with executive positions in major Israeli venture capital funds. In doing so, this idea evolved from a mere political concept into a comprehensive investment program.
The Financial Flows of the Emirates
Shortly after the accords were finalized, a strategic financial influx began from Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, “Mubadala,” directly into the heart of the Israeli technological ecosystem. This was not merely traditional investment aimed at financial returns; it represented a deep integration between Emirati sovereign capital and the Israeli military-cyber-industrial complex. The funds aimed to develop advanced hacking, surveillance, and lethal technologies, which were initially tested in Palestine before being exported to other conflict zones, including Sudan.
Key Players in the Strategy
Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed stands at the center of this strategy, exemplifying the intersection of national security, investment, and artificial intelligence. As the National Security Advisor, Chairman of Mubadala, and CEO of G42, a leading AI company, his unique concentration of power blurs the lines between security decisions and investment choices. Therefore, technological investments evolve into tools within a broader national security strategy rather than just market bets.
Within this framework, “Mubadala” has allocated approximately $100 million into six carefully selected Israeli venture capital funds, including Pitango, Viola, Mangrove, and Aleph. These funds are far from neutral players in the innovation market; they form the backbone of the Israeli technology economy and maintain organic ties with the military and intelligence sectors. Notably, these partnerships did not materialize abruptly following the accords but were established over years of clandestine communications, suggesting that the “Abraham Accords” were not a point of origin but rather an announcement of existing relationships.
The Data Economy and Security Applications
The direct implications of these investments have led to the expansion of what can be termed a “data mining economy.” By funding companies that outwardly appear civilian, resources have been funneled into digital infrastructure capable of collecting and processing user data on a regional scale. A prime example is ironSource, a company that developed applications forcibly installed on smartphones throughout the region, gathering sensitive data without clear user consent. This type of data collection does not directly generate commercial profits, reinforcing the hypothesis that the primary objective is strategic, aimed at controlling data flows as a geopolitical resource.
This data control mechanism operates through what resembles a “data control trinity”: hosting platforms like Wix, behavioral analytics firms like AppsFlyer, and device-level extraction tools like ironSource. With these companies being funded through Mubadala-backed funds, Emirati-Israeli partners gain a comprehensive view of the digital data life cycle in the Middle East, from production to security-based analysis.
However, the civilian façade of this strategy only constitutes half the picture. Behind it lies a comprehensive cyber-industrial complex linking investment funds to hacking and espionage companies. Previously, the UAE was merely a consumer of Israeli spying technologies like “Pegasus” and “Pegasus Eye.” Post-accords, it has transitioned to a financier and partner in developing the next generation of these technologies, as evidenced by funding directed toward firms like CyberArk, linked to Israeli military intelligence units and specializing in securing or breaching sensitive systems.
Field Testing in Conflict Zones
Sudan has emerged as a prominent testing ground for this system. Since the outbreak of conflict, well-documented allegations have surfaced accusing the UAE of supplying the Rapid Support Forces with advanced weaponry and technology, including electronic warfare systems that match products from leading Israeli firms. This support has not only prolonged the war and led to severe violations but also provided an opportunity to evaluate new technologies in real combat scenarios, thus enhancing their market and military value.
Conversely, Gaza serves as a critical laboratory for developing “dual-use” technologies, where academic research intersects with military applications. Tunnel detection projects, spearheaded by researchers connected to Israeli academia and weapon companies, exemplify this interplay, transforming scientific knowledge into direct war instruments before being reformulated as globally marketable products.
Investment in Military-Economic Innovation
This cycle is further complemented by the establishment of new funds that explicitly invest in “combat-tested technologies,” leveraging war as a business model. Consequently, Emirati capital becomes integral to an innovative military-economic cycle where technologies are trialed in combat zones and subsequently marketed as advanced solutions worldwide.
Ultimately, extending into the global struggle for AI chips illustrates the far-reaching implications of these strategies. “Mubadala’s” intertwined investments with Israeli digital security firms and global chip design companies provide it with a foothold in supply chains crucial for major corporations like Nvidia. Here, it transcends mere investment, morphing into a strategic penetration of the global technology system, serving aspirations for digital dominance and security.
In essence, it becomes evident that the “new Middle East” touted by the economic peace doctrine is not founded on the principles of reconciliation. Instead, it hinges upon integrating Gulf sovereign capital with the Israeli military-cyber-industrial complex. “Mubadala” is not a neutral investor but a strategic partner in reshaping the region through data control, militarization of conflicts, and influence over the future of global technology. In this light, the “Abraham Accords” represent merely the initial funding shot of a broader project, its chapters still unfolding.