The Normalization between Arab Gulf Countries and Israel Impact on Human Resource Development

Normalization between Arab Gulf Countries and its Impact on Human Resource Development

Abstract

The establishment of tranquil relations between Arab Gulf countries was deemed imperative when vendettas threaten to compromise human resource development significantly. It is worth highlighting that this entrenchment was developed historically, with improvements being made over time to reinforce mutually beneficial relations. In light of this, the most recent revision of these relations was done on September 11th, 2020, and was instigated by the Kingdom of Bahrain. Notably, this became the fourth Arab nation to normalize relations with Israel, whose plan entailed considerable diplomatic, security, and commercial enunciations among the specified parties.

Fundamentally, it was deemed a glaring necessity to initiate normalized relations within Arab Gulf countries in the prospect of gaining bipartisan favors from the United States of America. Appreciatively, the need for gaining bipartisan favors from the U.S. was necessary as it would cushion concerned parties from attaining a gridlock that would seal their fate to war. In avoidance of this, Israel has deemed a suitable niche that would instigate the U.S. to invest their bipartisan favors between the two regions. Further, normalized relations between Arab Gulf nations were anticipated to repress domestic challenges between countries engaging in commercial undertakings.

By attaining such milestones, it was almost guaranteed that international pressure would be minimized, if not eliminated in toto, rendering relations between countries stable and more efficient. In this regard, when the most recent move made by the Kingdom of Bahrain into establishing relations with Israel was announced, worldwide attention was noticed as this was expected to transform the face of human resource development.

Introduction

The Abraham Accords was the contemporary term used to refer to the relatively new terms set out in the agreement between Bahrain vis-à-vis Israel. The accords successfully restored hope and peace in the Arab Gulf region, besides motivating Palestine to invest in the newly-established factions to strengthen unity (U.N., 2020). Tentatively, the Abraham Accords were also said to have created a mutual approach tainted with support as far as the legislative and national presidential elections anticipated in Palestine were concerned (U.N., 2020). Thus, it is sufficient to state that the accords were a creative entrenchment that was expected and filled specific voids that impacted peace between the Arab Gulf countries (Hoffman, 2020).

Alternatively, it is worth noting that the bona fide treaty was met with rigorous critiques, most of which stated that Iran and Israel’s relationship would be tweaked, resulting in everlasting national security concerns (Guzansky & Heistein, 2021). On top of that, sources also revealed that Turkey resorted to investing in terrorist liaison to ensure that the Abraham Accords were unsuccessful, which would be viewed as punishment against Israel in “escaping the long-standing conflict between Arab Gulf nations.” (Guzansky & Heistein, 2021). Notably, Israel and Turkey previously had a treaty that sought tame conflicts that stemmed from the natural gas deposits that graced Turkey after allying with Libya (Guzansky & Heistein, 2021). Expectedly, normalized relations between Israel and Bahrain would jeopardize that agreement and compromise Turkey’s access to Libya’s natural gas deposits (Guzansky & Heistein, 2021).

Despite the dilemmas frenzy caused by the never-ending conflicts and gaps that would be re-opened, it is worth appreciating that the Abraham Accords successfully reinstated tranquility in the Arab Gulf region. The noble reconciliation brought about by the accords came a long way in warranting the resolution of regional deterioration that was initiated by Palestine conflicts with Israel (Barron, 2020).

Purpose

Delving into this area of study is of utmost importance as it elucidates the challenges faced by Arab Gulf countries before the establishment of normalized relations between themselves. Ostensibly, trading is a mundane investment between Arab Gulf countries that guarantees handsome profits and phenomenal innovations when the activities become successful. Consequently, strained relations were deemed detrimental to the future of commerce, security, and other essential elements that constitute harmonious existence. The long-standing conflict was the norm between Palestine and Israel before realizing that normalized relations would salvage their negotiations by a great deal (U.N., 2020). In essence, Arab Gulf countries belong to the same trading region, thereby justifying the need for normalized relations (U.N., 2020). It is palpable that delving into this study would illuminate gaps between the relations between Arab Gulf countries and stress on feasible measures that would boost human resource development.

Design

This study borrows immensely from secondary sources, including websites, conference discussions, and textbooks, focusing on the UAE-Israel normalized relations that work effectively in 2020. A comparative analysis of these sources is feasible by evaluating each other’s perspective, which is then invaluable in forming a reasonable discernment. The study further analyses various approaches enunciated by other scholars regarding the previous strains between Arab Gulf countries. Inarguably, such a deduction would aid in providing a reasonable approach that would assist other readers in comprehending the subject matter.

Findings

The design used in compiling this study was resourceful in illuminating various findings that were crucial for understanding normalized relations between Arab Gulf countries. As aforementioned, the treaty between the UAE and Israel would encourage the United States into offering bipartisan benefits to the countries and, consequently, boost investment, tourism, security, and other vital arenas (Barron, 2020). Inarguably, these favors were intended to significantly boost human resource development as they would promote job environments that were focused and peaceful.

Ostensibly, failure to establish the agreement would further expose employees to occupational hazards that would be overlooked by leaders who were less concerned about human resource development. To this effect, discrimination at workplaces, risks facing employees, among other encumbrances, would be an everlasting dilemma that could affect the quality of work delivered in workplaces. Fortunately, the situation was not aggravated because Bahrain realized that normalized relations with Israel would do their area considerable good.

The United States played a chief role in supporting the deal between Israel and the UAE in light of normalized relationships, especially in the Trump Administration Era (Barron, 2020). Essentially, the Trump Administration prioritized this treaty as it realized that regional security in America would be improved when the deal would cushion it against attacks from Iran (Barron, 2020). In this regard, the previous United States President, Donald Trump, deemed it worthy of investing in commendable engagements with significant Israelite and UAP figures as collateral to the deal and fostering a better deal (Barron, 2020). Most fundamentally, the U.S brokered the deal to secure exquisite economic integration, diplomatic engagements, and top-notch security levels that would boost human resource and warrant its economic affluence (Barron, 2020).

Since time immemorial, relations between Israel and Arab countries were considered tantamount to an abomination in the Arab domain (Barron, 2020). The Arab Summit of 1967 introduced three key rules to this effect, including the requirement of no peace with Israel, no negotiations entered into Israel, and no recognition of Israel in the Arab world (Quandt, 2005). Therefore, agreements with Israel were held formidable and contrary to public interests and policy, thereby reprimanding culprits that breached the regulations (Barron, 2020). However, this position changed when the United States, Israel, and the UAE perceived that improved normalized relations were more beneficial than detrimental and encouraged more Arab Gulf states to indulge in the same (Barron, 2020).

Theoretical Framework

The incorporation of theories into research is crucial in establishing the foundation of relevant aspects about specific issues. The issue of normalized relations between Arab Gulf states is supported by theories that stem from resolving the conflict between parties.

Dyadic Conflict Theory

Krainin and Ramsay propound that when regimes behave differently in the same circumstances, distinct settlement preferences would be established (2018). Further, it follows that when regimes have these distinct preferences over the nature of settlements, the type of dyad would have an essential effect on the war (Krainin & Ramsay, 2018). According to international relations, regimes have focused on analyzing the figures put in charge of decision making (Krasner, 1982).

According to Krainin and Ramsay (2018), dyadic conflict theory involves signing a formal peace agreement and termination of overt violent activities. Through this, it was guaranteed that countries involved in the treaty would be motivated to abide by the terms stipulated to avoid liability arising from the breach (Krainin & Ramsay, 2018). The intention was to create the required condition for a stage described as peacebuilding, stable peace, transformation, transitional, normalization, and reconciliation. Similarly, the Arab Israel conflict can be seen as a multi-dyadic conflict resolution process. The processes are interrelated in terms of politics, economy, and security, which encourage rapprochement or hostility between dyads and neighboring actors that could alter their perspective on the conflict.

The dyadic theory appreciates that most regimes resorted to using military force whenever disputes with other countries arose (Krainin & Ramsay, 2018). However, such force was useless in rehabilitation warring parties, as fighting would only aggravate already bad situations. In the long run, the magnitude of military force applied counted in determining the victorious party (Krainin & Ramsay, 2018). Besides this approach failing to reconcile disputing regimes, it was also contrary to public interests because humanistic wars would also be inevitable among individuals whose countries engaged in feuds (Krainin & Ramsay, 2018).

What is more, democracy was not upheld; arguably, using military force would be considered a last resort after all possible reconciliation measures failed in a democratic country. In contrast, anarchical governments devoid of democracy would rush into enforcing military force to flaunt their political muscles and threaten to jeopardize the country’s existence on the receiving end of the brutality.

The Game Theory

The game theory was notorious for analyzing the strategies incorporated by various players in an economic setting (Zhang & Zheng, 2010). The theory assumes that rationality and maximization are utilized. Players are assumed to be rational and open to maximizing the profits accrued from their strategies in the form of outcomes (McNulty, 2019). Typically, economically, it would be notoriously implied that when a player invests in outstanding strategies against the opponent, in a situation where rationality and maximization are constant, it would then follow that the most strategic player would testify the best outcomes (SEP, 2019). On the other hand, where a player decides to follow their opponent’s footsteps by applying strategies that would not fit their situation, the panic mode would guarantee massive losses for the less strategic player, rendering the creative one victorious (SEP, 2019).

Nwaeke and Akenbor (2012) acknowledge that the game theory is sufficient in conflict resolution and appreciate that conflicts are normal owing to contrasting interests. Conflicts stem from people’s insatiable nature, poorly defined responsibilities, scarce resources, stratification of classes, among other factors, and need to be mitigated timely before they blow out of proportion (Akenbor & Nwaeke, 2012). The conflict resolution would lead to outstanding performance, while an otherwise position would cause unprecedented results tainted with errors that would have otherwise been resolved through unity (Akenbor & Nwaeke, 2012).

Similarly, for the UAE and Israel, the most promising approach would be acknowledging that despite distinct interests and cultural positions, an amicable agreement would be feasible. The move made by the UAE exceeded cultural expectations that were founded on long-standing conflicts that ought not to be revised was a commendable strategy that focused on fruitful outcomes. Israel also breached its agreement with Iran to secure vast interests that favored international relations over dubious minor interests. On top of that, the U.S. deemed it necessary to broker the deal for international relation’s sake and ensure that economic integration was uncompromised across countries. Concerning the game theory, both countries applied strategic investments to secure the future of international relationships, especially security, commerce, and development.

The game theory can also be assimilated into human resource development by stressing the need to foster unity in the workplace. It is worth considering that employees have distinct interests and stem from different backgrounds and cultures that pre-determine how they behave. However, a convergent approach would be extremely crucial in enhancing the top-notch quality of the delivered output since the variation in backgrounds would encourage more ideas into submitting unique results (Marquardt & Nancy, 2003). Palpably, generational differences are central in determining the output of work. Unfortunately, many people have disregarded generational differences in businesses and criticized leaders who ultimately affiliate with different backgrounds.

However, from an optimistic perspective, generational differences ensure that baby bloomers focus on the nuances involved in handling tasks provided. In contrast, millennials and others from later generations input technological knowledge into submitting high-quality work. Therefore, a liaison between individuals from earlier and those from later generations is more useful than otherwise as it improves the performance of tasks. Therefore, the game theory is plausible in converging previously diverse interests by focusing on what can be achieved when differences are put aside and disregarding conflict unfounded on reasonable grounds (Hirsch, 2020).

The Impact of Normalized Relations on Human Resource Development

Human resources benefited immensely from the normalized relations instigated between Arab Gulf countries, especially the most recent Abraham Accords. Before the treaty, there were profound limitations on employees regarding mobility within restricted countries (Varshney, 2018). Before the Abraham Accords, Israel enjoyed normalized relations with Egypt and Jordan, mostly because the countries neighbor each other (Pellerin & Sioufi, 2020). Civil aviation, improved healthcare, water security, legal cooperation, preservation of the environment, innovation, trade relations, etc., were boosted commendably (Pellerin & Sioufi, 2020).

Human development benefits from this when employees can access visas to travel into and out of Arab countries peacefully and conduct their business leaders (Kahn & Arieli, 2020). Moreover, they can be salvaged from previous water and electricity rations that hindered the efficacy of their performance owing to vendettas that sought to disadvantage the other party immensely (Rehman, 2020). On top of that, the exportation and importation of goods out of and into Israel is now easy, presenting an enormous opportunity that promotes economic affluence (Pellerin & Sioufi, 2020). When this happens, the modern world’s qualms, including complex technology, are demystified, forming a new basis of interaction between Arab countries in light of attaining outstanding goals (Pellerin & Sioufi, 2020).

The Abraham Accords has significantly supported human resource development by investing in Science, Art, Technology, Medicine, and Commerce (Mir et al., 2020). Thanks to this, employees have been encouraged to specialize in the areas where they would become the most productive and provide exemplary results (Mondos & Jafar, 2019). Given the inception of the modern era, technology has been introduced into virtually every domain of life, including business. However, technology’s dynamic nature renders it almost impractical to appropriate all digitized affiliations into business by employees (Swanson, 2005). However, through labor specialization, focusing on the most efficient devices has provided stellar results for employees when they get accustomed to relevant devices (Mir et al., 2020).

Moreover, the Accords also ensured that radicalization and conflicts relating to different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds would be tamed to provide employees with an equal opportunity to make progress (Mir et al., 2020). When human resource assimilates individuals from different backgrounds while fostering harmony, the Abraham Accords’ objects are satisfied. Arguably, this object stemmed from the inability of Arab Gulf countries to fail to get along because of cultural positions; however, when they exceeded these limitations, the future of international relations was improved (Mir et al., 2020). Similarly, employees are encouraged to work more efficiently when workplace discrimination is eliminated from their job environments.

Previously, phone calls between the UAE and Israel were impossible, given the feuds’ nature. However, the Abraham Accords made this possible when a secure network was established to ensure that websites relating to Israeli News that the UAE previously blocked are now possible (Pellerin & Sioufi, 2020). Through this, communication between the countries is now possible, especially in the face of human resource development. Notably, through the ease in communication now, employees affiliated with businesses that transact between the UAE and Israel can palatably communicate with each other to boost business affairs.

Originality

This research study focuses on a subjective perspective that is entitled to be countered but is founded on existing theoretical assumptions and the situation currently facing Arab Gulf states. The study is also premised on the foundational knowledge acquired from History and Business classes, which analyze conflict and provide the best mechanisms that promote affluence.

Research Limitations

While compiling this study, some challenges include limited time for submission, limited cites for research, and some unreliable sources of reference. Some authors hold unconvincing perspectives that threatened to alter my natural perception of the subject matter about the latter dilemma. However, this researcher has maneuvered through the challenges and compiled a coherent study that stems from reason and adequate research.