In the shadow of one of the most catastrophic intelligence failures in Israeli history, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has turned to the courts to contest a newspaper's claim that he received advance warning of the October 7 attacks from a trusted Gulf ally. Haaretz, drawing on a forthcoming book, alleges that UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed personally conveyed Hamas's intentions to Netanyahu days before the assault that killed 1,200 people — a warning Netanyahu's office categorically denies. The lawsuit arrives as Israel approaches a general election, transforming a question of his
Netanyahu sues over UAE warning claim ahead of Israeli elections
The October 7 attacks killed approximately 1,200 people and resulted in 251 hostages taken to Gaza; Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza has killed at least 73,670 people according to the territory's health ministry.
Netanyahu said he reassured the UAE leader that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
Mark
So what's actually at stake here—is this about whether Netanyahu got a warning, or is it about something else?
Mimi
Both. If the warning happened and he didn't act on it, that's a massive failure of leadership. But the lawsuit itself is about whether Haaretz can publish this story at all. Netanyahu is saying they're lying and trying to interfere with elections.
Luke
Right, but we should be clear: Haaretz cites three foreign senior sources and a Palestinian adviser. That's not nothing, but it's also not a confession from Netanyahu or the UAE. The UAE statement is careful—they didn't deny it, but they also didn't confirm it.
Mark
Why would Netanyahu sue if the story is false? Wouldn't that just draw more attention to it?
Mimi
That's the calculation he's making. He's betting that the lawsuit signals strength, that it shows his supporters he's fighting back against what he calls a "sinister plot." But Haaretz's lawyers are saying the lawsuit is itself an attempt to silence journalism.
Luke
The timing is worth noting. This publishes days before elections. That's either perfect timing for a story about his fitness for office, or it's exactly what Netanyahu means by political interference. We don't know which.
Mark
What about the UAE? Are they backing up the story or backing up Netanyahu?
Mimi
They're doing neither and both. They said intelligence is shared when necessary, but they didn't confirm or deny this specific call. It's diplomatic language that keeps their options open.
Luke
The opposition leaders demanding an investigation—that's the real political pressure. If this story gains traction, it becomes a referendum question: Did he get warned and ignore it?
Mark
And if he didn't get warned?
Mimi
Then Haaretz has published something false during an election, and Netanyahu's lawsuit becomes a way to hold the press accountable. But the newspaper is betting that the sourcing and the book research will hold up.
Luke
The book itself matters. This isn't just a newspaper making claims—it's based on reporting for a published work. That gives it more weight, but it also means the authors and their sources are on record.
The Pulse
- A forthcoming book and Haaretz investigation allege that the UAE's leader personally warned Netanyahu of an imminent Hamas 'earthquake' operation just days before October 7 — and that Netanyahu told no one in Israel's security establishment.
- Netanyahu's office has responded with legal force and political fury, filing defamation proceedings and accusing Haaretz of a 'sinister plot' timed to sabotage his standing ahead of the October 27 elections.
- Haaretz is refusing to yield, defending its reporting as a matter of paramount public importance and framing Netanyahu's lawsuit as an attempt to suppress accountability journalism.
- The UAE has neither confirmed nor denied the alleged phone call, offering only a measured statement that relevant intelligence has always been shared through proper channels.
- Four major opposition leaders have seized on the report to demand a formal investigation and declare Netanyahu unfit for office, raising the political temperature as the election draws near.
- With at least 73,670 people killed in Gaza since October 7 and 251 hostages still unaccounted for in public memory, the question of what was known — and when — carries a moral weight that no courtroom ruling can fully resolve.
In the shadow of one of the most catastrophic intelligence failures in Israeli history, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has turned to the courts to contest a newspaper's claim that he received advance warning of the October 7 attacks from a trusted Gulf ally. Haaretz, drawing on a forthcoming book, alleges that UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed personally conveyed Hamas's intentions to Netanyahu days before the assault that killed 1,200 people — a warning Netanyahu's office categorically denies. The lawsuit arrives as Israel approaches a general election, transforming a question of historical accountability into a contest over who controls the narrative of a nation's grief. What hangs in the balance is not merely one leader's reputation, but the deeper human need to understand how catastrophe is allowed to arrive unannounced.
Benjamin Netanyahu's legal team has filed defamation proceedings against Haaretz after the newspaper reported that UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed personally warned Netanyahu of an impending Hamas operation in late September 2023 — days before the October 7 attacks that killed approximately 1,200 people and resulted in 251 hostages being taken to Gaza.
The Haaretz account, drawn from a forthcoming book by two Israeli journalists, describes a confidential phone call arranged through a secure device delivered by a UAE embassy emissary. During the call, Sheikh Mohammed reportedly relayed that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had spoken of preparing an 'earthquake' — a major operation — and expressed concern about regional destabilization. Netanyahu, according to the report, responded calmly, suggesting Hamas's focus was the West Bank, and crucially did not inform the heads of Shin Bet, Mossad, or the military chief of staff about the exchange.
Netanyahu's office has rejected the account entirely, calling it fabricated and part of a 'sinister plot.' Netanyahu himself framed the story as politically motivated, accusing the left of using it as an election weapon. His Likud Party went further, alleging 'blatant foreign interference' in Israel's democratic process. Haaretz, for its part, has stood by its journalism, describing the investigation as thorough and the subject matter as one of the highest public importance — and characterizing the defamation notice as an effort to silence critical reporting.
The UAE has not denied the alleged conversation, instead issuing a statement affirming that relevant intelligence has always been shared through appropriate channels since the two countries normalized relations.
The legal battle unfolds as Israel prepares for general elections on October 27, widely seen as a verdict on Netanyahu's leadership. Four opposition figures — including former prime ministers and defense ministers — have jointly called for a formal investigation into the events surrounding October 7 and declared Netanyahu unfit to govern. Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza has killed at least 73,670 people according to the territory's health ministry. Whether the Haaretz report ultimately holds up or not, it has ensured that the question of what Netanyahu knew — and when — will remain at the center of Israel's political reckoning.
Benjamin Netanyahu's legal team has initiated defamation proceedings against Haaretz, one of Israel's most prominent newspapers, over a report published this week claiming that the United Arab Emirates warned him of an imminent Hamas operation in the final days of September 2023—just before the October 7 attacks that killed roughly 1,200 people and led to 251 hostages being taken to Gaza.
The newspaper's account, drawn from a forthcoming book titled Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment by Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval, describes a confidential phone call between Netanyahu and UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. According to Haaretz's reporting, an emissary from the UAE embassy delivered a secure phone to Netanyahu's office to ensure the conversation would remain private. During that call, the newspaper said, Sheikh Mohammed conveyed explicit intelligence: Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had told a former Palestinian official that the organization was preparing what he called an "earthquake"—a major operation. The Emirati leader expressed concern that such an event would not only cause bloodshed but destabilize the entire region. Netanyahu, the report continued, responded with relative composure, suggesting that Hamas intended to operate in the West Bank and assuring Sheikh Mohammed that Israel was prepared for any scenario. The newspaper also reported that Netanyahu did not brief the heads of Israel's Shin Bet security agency, Mossad intelligence service, or the army's chief of staff about this conversation.
Netanyahu's office has flatly rejected the account. A statement from his office declared that "no warning was given to the prime minister from the United Arab Emirates before 7 October," characterizing the Haaretz report as part of a "sinister plot." The prime minister himself posted on social media that the story carried "clear political timing, as part of the left's election campaign," and his Likud Party accused the newspaper of "blatant foreign interference in Israel's elections."
Haaretz has stood firm. The newspaper's legal team responded to Netanyahu's defamation notice by reaffirming its commitment to the reporting, describing it as "the product of an in-depth journalistic investigation" based on sources addressing "an issue of paramount public importance." The lawyers rejected what they characterized as the prime minister's attempt to silence critical journalism, noting that in the absence of full public accountability from Netanyahu's government, the press fulfills its role by exposing information step by step.
The UAE has not directly addressed the alleged conversation but has not denied it either. In a statement following Haaretz's publication, the country's ministry of foreign affairs emphasized that it has maintained open communication channels with Israel since their relationship began more than five years ago, and that "all relevant intelligence has been and continues to be communicated between the relevant entities" when necessary.
The dispute erupts as Israel prepares for general elections scheduled for October 27, widely viewed as a referendum on Netanyahu's leadership. The timing has sharpened the political stakes. Four of Israel's main opposition leaders—Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yair Golan—issued a joint statement demanding an investigation into what occurred on and before October 7. They declared Netanyahu and his government partners "unfit to continue in office" and pledged to work with coordination and responsibility to prevent them from leading to "another disaster."
The October 7 attacks themselves remain the defining event. Thousands of Hamas-led gunmen breached the Gaza border fence and attacked Israeli communities, military bases, and a music festival, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza. Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza has resulted in at least 73,670 deaths according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry, figures the United Nations considers reliable. Since the attack, accusations have mounted that Netanyahu did not respond quickly enough, and he has resisted calls for an independent public inquiry. This latest report, whether it proves true or false, will only intensify scrutiny of his actions in those critical hours and days.
Notable Quotes
No warning was given to the prime minister from the United Arab Emirates before 7 October— Netanyahu's office
Netanyahu and his partners in the 7 October government are unfit to continue in office— Opposition leaders Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yair Golan
Want the full story?
Read the original at BBC News ↗
Politics & Governance