
Haaretz report alleges Netanyahu received UAE warning ten days before 7 October attacks
A new investigation based on an upcoming book states UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed alerted Benjamin Netanyahu in a 45-minute call, prompting denials and a defamation lawsuit ahead of Israeli elections.
The Haaretz investigation
An investigation published on 8 September 2026 by Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received direct advance warning of an imminent Hamas attack ten days before 7 October 2023. The report is drawn from an upcoming book titled "Kidnapped: 843 Days of Abandonment" by Israeli journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval. According to the authors, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan contacted the Israeli prime minister in a 45-minute telephone call to alert him that Hamas was preparing an operation against Israel. Haaretz reported that Netanyahu assessed the Palestinian group intended to act in the West Bank rather than southern Israel. Consequently, the prime minister did not relay the Emirati warning to senior commanders in the Israel Defense Forces or the leadership of the Shin Bet internal security service.
Netanyahu response and legal action
Netanyahu rejected the investigation immediately following its publication, with his office categorizing the reporting as totally false. On 9 September 2026, the prime minister stated that no telephone conversation had occurred with Mohammed bin Zayed prior to the 2023 attack and declared the allegations to be an absolute lie. Netanyahu subsequently announced his intention to file a formal defamation lawsuit against Haaretz. The report contradicts the official narrative presented by the prime minister over the preceding three years. Netanyahu has consistently attributed the intelligence failures of 7 October to military and security chiefs, arguing that defense officials chose not to wake him during the early morning hours before the incursion.
- Hamas launches attacks against Israel.
- Sara Netanyahu questions Yair Golan's readiness on 7 October during a Channel 14 interview.
- Haaretz publishes report stating the UAE warned Netanyahu ten days before 7 October.
- Netanyahu denies receiving UAE warning and announces a defamation lawsuit against Haaretz.
- Scheduled date for Israeli legislative elections.
Pre-election political fallout
The allegations surfaced seven weeks before the 27 October 2026 Israeli legislative elections, placing the 7 October attacks back at the core of national political debates. Opposition parties responded by renewing their calls for the government to establish an official state commission of inquiry into the security failures. The controversy also followed tensions over claims made by the prime minister's family. On 31 August 2026, Sara Netanyahu gave an interview on Channel 14 where she questioned why retired general Yair Golan, leader of the center-left party The Democrats, was dressed and armed at dawn on 7 October while government leaders were unaware. The Democrats condemned the statement as a baseless conspiracy theory, pointing out that Golan had deployed independently with his weapon to rescue civilians during the assault. David Khalfa, co-director at the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, noted that Netanyahu has repeatedly deflected responsibility while allowing conspiracy claims from his wife and son Yair to spread publicly.
Diplomatic measures and coalition pressures
The domestic dispute unfolded alongside mounting international trade pressure on the Israeli government. On 8 September 2026, a coalition of twelve nations, including France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, announced trade restrictions targeting commercial goods produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Writing in Haaretz on 9 September 2026, commentator Linda Dayan evaluated the reaction of voters after three years of reporting on defense lapses.
Will it change anything?
Netanyahu continues efforts to unify right-wing and far-right factions to build a governing Knesset majority ahead of the 27 October vote. Parliamentary opponents cite the latest reporting to argue that the prime minister is unfit to hold office.

