Sometimes an incident raises more questions than answers.

The Flydubair flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv on Wednesday was, by any measure, terrifying. There was a violent incident in the cockpit, the aircraft suffered an extraordinary loss of altitude, emergency signals were transmitted and the plane eventually made an emergency landing in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Passengers survived. The crew survived. The aircraft landed safely.

For that, we should be grateful.

The official investigation is still under way. The UAE General Civil Aviation Authority has specifically warned against speculation while the facts are established. So I am not going to pretend to know what happened inside that cockpit, or why. ⁠

But there is a part of the story that I find difficult to ignore.

The aircraft was flying from the UAE to Israel. It was carrying 174 people, most of them Israeli passengers.

As the emergency unfolded, the aircraft transmitted the general emergency code 7700. It then transmitted 7500 — the internationally recognised signal for unlawful interference.

And then something rather interesting happened.

The aircraft briefly entered Jordanian airspace.

Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel. The UAE has normalised relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords.

Saudi Arabia has done neither.

Yet the aircraft turned back towards Saudi Arabia and ultimately requested an emergency landing at Tabuk. Saudi authorities received the distress call and allowed the aircraft to land. The injured crew members were taken to hospital and the passengers were looked after.⁠

So far, so good.

In fact, it is precisely what we should expect from a country responding to an aircraft in distress.

But then came the second chapter.

Israel reportedly asked Saudi Arabia to allow Israeli aircraft to enter the Kingdom to collect its citizens.

Saudi Arabia said no.

According to Reuters, Israel had prepared to send military transport aircraft, including C-130 Hercules planes, but the request was rejected. The passengers ultimately returned to Israel on another Flydubai aircraft.

And this is where I think there are some legitimate questions — not conspiracy theories, just questions.

Why Saudi Arabia?

Why, having briefly entered Jordanian airspace, did the aircraft turn back towards Saudi Arabia?

Was Tabuk simply the most appropriate airport available given the circumstances? Was the decision made by the crew, air traffic control, or some combination of the two?

We don’t yet know.

And that distinction matters.

Because there is a temptation, particularly in the Middle East, to take an unexplained detail and immediately build a theory around it.

We should resist that.

But equally, we shouldn’t pretend that unexplained details aren’t worth examining.

There is another interesting distinction here.

Saudi Arabia was willing to provide emergency assistance to an Israel-bound aircraft and its passengers.

But it was not willing to permit Israeli planes to enter Saudi territory to retrieve those same passengers.

That tells us something about the limits of the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Saudi Arabia has not joined the Abraham Accords and has not established diplomatic relations with Israel. Its position remains that normalisation is linked to progress towards Palestinian statehood.

So perhaps the most revealing part of this extraordinary episode is not the landing itself.

It is what happened afterwards.

A Saudi airport could become, in an emergency, a place of refuge for Israeli citizens.

But that did not suddenly make Saudi Arabia a country willing to receive Israeli planes.

There is a difference between humanitarian or aviation cooperation in an emergency and diplomatic normalisation.

And perhaps that is the real story here.

The Middle East is changing. Flights connect countries that once had no relationship. Commercial interests increasingly cross political boundaries. Quiet cooperation happens where formal diplomacy has not yet followed.

But the old lines have not disappeared.

They have simply become more complicated.

So, I have no conclusion about what happened inside Flight FZ1073. Nor should anyone pretend to have one before the investigation is complete.

But I do have a few questions.

Why did the aircraft turn back after entering Jordanian airspace?

Why was Tabuk chosen?

Why did Saudi Arabia agree to receive the aircraft but refuse Israeli plane permission to retrieve the passengers?

And what does this incident tell us about the very different relationships Israel currently has with the UAE, Jordan and Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps there is nothing more to it than an extraordinary aviation emergency followed by perfectly rational decisions made under pressure.

Perhaps.

But asking questions is not the same thing as inventing answers.

Recently Louise has championed the case of Ali Al Khawahir, the 24 years old Saudi man who as a boy of 14 stabbed and permanently paralysed another young boy. After 10 years in prison, a Saudi court ruled Al Khawahir is to pay a deyaa (a compensation usually paid to victims of crime or their families by the offenders or their families) of 1M Saudi Riyals (equivalent to £177,000). Failing that Al Khawahir is sentenced to be surgically paralysed (an eye for an eye) by cutting his spinal cord.

As a Muslim, I know of al deyaa concept but never before heard of anyone being surgically paralysed as equal punishment. Furthermore, Islamic courts are guided by compassion and shura (consultation). So I am rather surprised no one in the whole of Saudi Arabia has yet pleaded for this young man’s mercy or put up the full amount of al deyaa, another Islamic tradition.

For days now Louise has been tweeting and talking about this issue. This morning on BBC Radio 5 she condemned the sentence and scolded our government for not doing more than the basic, common standard diplomatic protocol in the matter, of condemning it. Which surprises me a bit, as not long ago Mensch herself was an MP and should know how these things work. Saudi Arabia is one of the UK’s biggest strategic allies and trading partners in the region. If our government (regardless of political hue) is unhappy with what they did/are doing, they are not going to blast them for it publicly. It will be done tactfully and quietly. And for all we know they might have already done it. So for a former Conservative MP to go on radio and Twitter calling for William Hague ‘and not some unknown FCO personal’ to have some kind of huge announcement is unrealistic and overconfident.

But what really surprised me in all of this, Louise has over 76000 followers on Twitter, yet she never considered using her Twitter clout to raise the £177,000 deyaa and confidently save the young Ali Al Khawahir from permanent paralyses! Because he will only have the surgery if he/his family fail to raise the funds (that is unless the king or the victim’s family pardons him).