Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected a report about the October 7, 2023 attack. The report appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It alleges that United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan warned Netanyahu about Hamas preparations.
According to the investigation, journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval reported a 45-minute phone call. They said the conversation took place in late September 2023. The report claims bin Zayed raised concerns about Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
The UAE president allegedly warned that Hamas was preparing a major operation. He reportedly said the attack could cause widespread bloodshed. He also warned that it could destabilize the region.
However, Netanyahu’s office has strongly denied the report. His office called the allegation an “absolute lie.” It said Netanyahu did not speak with the UAE president during that period.
What the Haaretz Report Claims
The Haaretz investigation says information reached the UAE before October 7. That information allegedly showed growing frustration from Sinwar.
According to the report, intermediaries were involved in contacts between Israel and Hamas. They allegedly provided information about Hamas preparations for a major operation.
The report says the UAE leadership became concerned. As a result, bin Zayed allegedly raised the issue with Netanyahu.
According to Haaretz, he warned about possible bloodshed and regional instability. He also reportedly raised concerns about the Abraham Accords.
The agreements were brokered by the United States. They helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries.
The report says Netanyahu responded calmly to the warning. He allegedly indicated that Israel was prepared for possible scenarios.
However, the investigation claims his assessment focused more on the West Bank. It says he did not appear to expect a massive assault from Gaza.
Another major claim concerns the handling of the alleged warning. Haaretz reported that senior Israeli security officials may not have received the information.
If proven, that claim could raise serious questions. It could also prompt scrutiny of Israel’s intelligence procedures.
Netanyahu Calls Allegation False
Netanyahu’s office has rejected the account.
The prime minister said there was no such conversation with the UAE president. He also suggested that a call of that nature would have left a record.
His office added that intelligence exchanges normally follow established channels. Such communications would therefore involve relevant Israeli authorities.
Meanwhile, the UAE has not confirmed the alleged conversation. Its Foreign Ministry has declined to comment on reports about communications between leaders.
For now, the alleged call remains disputed. Haaretz has reported the conversation, but it has not been independently established as fact.
October 7 Attack Raised Intelligence Questions
Around 10 days after the alleged conversation, Hamas-led militants attacked Israel.
The attackers breached the Gaza border. They targeted military positions and civilian communities in southern Israel.
About 1,200 people were killed. Another 251 people were taken hostage, according to Israeli figures.
The attack triggered Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. It also contributed to a wider regional conflict.
The assault shocked Israel because of its scale and speed. It also exposed major questions about intelligence and military readiness.
Border security became another major area of concern. Political leaders and security officials have faced intense scrutiny since then.
Investigators have also examined warnings received before the attack. They are looking at whether those warnings were properly assessed.
Egypt Had Also Raised Concerns
The alleged UAE warning is not the only pre-October 7 claim.
Egyptian intelligence officials had reportedly warned Israel about Hamas preparations. Questions later emerged about how those warnings were communicated.
Investigators have also examined how Israeli officials interpreted the information. Some reports suggested that the warnings did not lead to a major change in Israel’s assessment.
Another report said Egyptian intelligence passed information to Israel. It allegedly warned of an operation intended to “make the ground in Gaza tremble.”
Israeli surveillance personnel had also noticed unusual Hamas activity. Some personnel reportedly observed training and other preparations.
Several of those activities later appeared similar to parts of the October 7 assault. However, Israeli intelligence did not conclude that a major attack was imminent.
Political Pressure on Netanyahu
The latest report has increased political pressure on Netanyahu.
Opposition politicians have demanded a comprehensive investigation. They want authorities to examine the failures surrounding October 7.
Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot has criticized Netanyahu. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has also called for accountability.
The central questions remain clear. Did Netanyahu receive a warning? What information was available to him? Were senior security officials informed?
Opposition parties have promised a state commission of inquiry. They say it would be a priority if they form the next government.
For Netanyahu, the issue is especially sensitive. National security has long been central to his political image.
The October 7 attack badly damaged that reputation. It also created widespread public anger over the government’s handling of security threats.
Netanyahu Threatens Legal Action
The dispute has now moved toward a potential legal battle.
Netanyahu has said he plans to take legal action against Haaretz and journalist Shlomi Eldar. The newspaper has stood by its reporting.
The controversy could also affect Israel’s political debate. Security and the Gaza war are already major election issues.
The alleged UAE warning adds another question. What did Israel’s leadership know before October 7? How was that information handled?
For now, the main allegation remains disputed. Haaretz says the warning and conversation occurred. Netanyahu’s office says they did not.
A definitive answer would require further evidence. It could also depend on findings from an authoritative investigation.
