Washington: A new report by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper has triggered a political storm in Israel, alleging that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was personally warned by United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan about preparations for a major Hamas operation roughly 10 days before the Oct. 7, 2023, attack.
The report, based on an investigation by Haaretz journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval for an upcoming book, claims the two leaders spoke by telephone for approximately 45 minutes in late September 2023.
According to the report, bin Zayed specifically raised concerns about Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and warned that Hamas was preparing a major military operation that could cause significant bloodshed, destabilize the region and threaten the Abraham Accords — the U.S.-brokered agreements that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states.
The allegation is politically explosive because it raises a central question that has remained at the heart of Israel’s debate over the Oct. 7 disaster: What did Netanyahu know before the attack, when did he know it, and what did he do with the information?
Netanyahu’s office calls report an “absolute lie”. Netanyahu’s office has categorically rejected the report. The prime minister’s office says Netanyahu did not speak with the UAE president during the period in question and did not receive such a warning. Netanyahu has described the allegation as an “absolute lie.”
Netanyahu has also indicated that there would have been a record of such a conversation and has rejected the suggestion that he personally received a warning from the UAE leader and failed to act on it. His office has said that any intelligence exchanges between Israel and the UAE would have been handled through established channels.
The UAE, meanwhile, has not publicly confirmed the alleged 45-minute conversation. Its Foreign Ministry has declined to comment on reports or speculation concerning conversations between leaders, while stressing the longstanding communication and intelligence-sharing relationship between the UAE and Israel.
That leaves a critical distinction for investigators and journalists: the alleged call has been reported by Haaretz but has not been independently established as fact.
What Haaretz says happened
According to the Haaretz investigation, information reaching the UAE indicated that Sinwar was increasingly frustrated with the slow progress of negotiations involving Israel and Hamas.
The report says intermediaries involved in contacts between Israel and Hamas provided information suggesting that Sinwar was preparing a major operation.
The UAE leadership, according to the report, became sufficiently concerned to raise the matter directly with Netanyahu.
Bin Zayed allegedly warned that a major Hamas operation could produce widespread bloodshed and destabilize the region, while also threatening the fragile diplomatic framework created by the Abraham Accords.
The report further alleges that Netanyahu reacted relatively calmly and indicated that Israel was prepared for possible scenarios.
But, according to the report, Netanyahu’s assessment focused more heavily on the possibility of a threat emerging from the West Bank, rather than a massive assault launched from Gaza.
The most serious part of the allegation is that senior Israeli security officials were allegedly not briefed about the warning.
If established, that would raise questions not only about whether Netanyahu received the information, but also about how potentially significant intelligence was handled at the highest level of government.
Ten days later, Oct. 7 changed Israel forever
Approximately 10 days after the alleged conversation, Hamas-led militants launched the surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The attackers breached the Gaza border and struck Israeli military positions and civilian communities in southern Israel.
About 1,200 people were killed and 251 people were taken hostage.
The attack triggered Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and eventually contributed to a much broader regional conflict involving Lebanon and Iran.
The scale of the attack shocked Israel and exposed major failures involving intelligence, military readiness, border security and political decision-making.
Three years later, responsibility for those failures remains one of the most contentious issues in Israeli politics.
The warning controversy goes beyond the UAE
The UAE allegation is not the first claim that Israel received warnings before Oct. 7.
Egyptian intelligence officials had previously raised concerns about Hamas preparations before the attack.
Israeli and international reporting has repeatedly examined whether Egyptian warnings were passed to the appropriate Israeli authorities and whether they were interpreted correctly.
A separate report published alongside the latest Haaretz controversy says Egyptian intelligence conveyed information to Israel indicating that Hamas was planning an operation intended to “make the ground in Gaza tremble.”
Questions over Israeli intelligence failures
Investigations into the Oct. 7 attack have also examined warnings from within Israel’s own security establishment.
Israeli surveillance personnel had reportedly observed unusual Hamas activity in the months leading up to the attack, including training exercises and preparations that later appeared to resemble elements of the actual assault.
Yet the information did not result in an assessment that Hamas was about to launch the type of large-scale assault that ultimately occurred.
The failure has led to widespread criticism of Israel’s military and intelligence establishment as well as the political leadership.
The latest allegations have intensified demands from opposition politicians for a comprehensive state investigation into the events leading up to Oct. 7.
Opposition figures, including former military chief Gadi Eisenkot and former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, have sharply criticized Netanyahu and demanded accountability for what they describe as catastrophic leadership failures.
The opposition’s questions are straightforward:
Did Netanyahu receive a warning?
If he did, why was the country’s security leadership not informed?
What intelligence did the prime minister possess before Oct. 7?
Why was the threat from Gaza not treated as an imminent danger?
Opposition parties have promised that, if they form the next government, establishing a state commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding Oct. 7 would be among their priorities.
Netanyahu says he will sue Haaretz
The dispute has now escalated beyond political criticism.
Netanyahu has said he intends to take legal action against Haaretz and journalist Shlomi Eldar over the report. Haaretz has stood by its reporting.
The election will be the first national vote since the Oct. 7 attack and the wars that followed in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.
That makes the political implications of the Haaretz report particularly significant.
Netanyahu has built much of his political identity around national security and his reputation as a leader capable of protecting Israel against its enemies.
But the Oct. 7 attack badly damaged that image.
Reuters reported this week that Netanyahu is attempting to unite Israel’s fragmented right-wing factions ahead of the election as his political bloc faces a difficult contest.
The latest warning controversy could add another major issue to an election already dominated by security, Gaza, the regional wars and Netanyahu’s leadership.
