Netanyahu Knew About the Coming October 7 Attack and Didn’t Tell Israel’s Security Chiefs

Netanyahu Faces Explosive Claim He Was Warned of Major Hamas Operation Before October 7 and Failed to Alert Israel’s Security Chiefs

A new Israeli investigation has reopened one of the most consequential questions surrounding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack: what did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu know before the assault, when did he know it, and what happened to the intelligence once it reached the highest levels of Israel’s government?

According to reporting by Israeli journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval, United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan personally warned Netanyahu roughly 10 days before October 7 that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was preparing a major operation against Israel. The journalists allege that the warning came during an approximately 45 minute telephone conversation in late September 2023 and concerned an operation that could cause significant bloodshed, destabilize the region and threaten the Abraham Accords. Most significantly, their investigation alleges that Netanyahu did not relay the warning to Israel’s senior security leadership.

Netanyahu categorically denies the account. His office says the conversation never occurred, that he received no such warning from the UAE and that reviews of official records found no evidence of the alleged call. Netanyahu has instructed his attorneys to pursue a defamation lawsuit against Haaretz and Eldar, while Haaretz has said it stands behind its reporting. The UAE government, meanwhile, has neither confirmed nor denied the alleged conversation, stating officially that it does not comment on media speculation concerning conversations between government leaders.

The dispute is therefore not settled fact. It is an extraordinary allegation supported by an investigation whose journalists say they possess confidential sourcing, documents and records, confronted by an equally categorical denial from Netanyahu’s government. What the reporting does not establish is equally important: there is no credible evidence in the investigation that Netanyahu issued a “stand down” order, deliberately permitted Hamas to attack or possessed the specific operational details of the October 7 assault.

The Alleged Warning Came Roughly 10 Days Before the Attack

The investigation is based on reporting by Eldar and Yuval and material from their book about the October 7 attack and hostage crisis. Their account says bin Zayed contacted Netanyahu approximately a week and a half before Hamas crossed into southern Israel and warned him that Sinwar was preparing a major operation.

According to the investigation, bin Zayed warned that the operation could result in bloodshed, destabilize the region and jeopardize the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements that established diplomatic relations between Israel, the UAE and other Arab states. Netanyahu allegedly reacted calmly, indicating that Israel believed it was prepared for possible scenarios and suggesting that a more immediate threat was likely to emerge from the occupied West Bank rather than Gaza.

That distinction is important because the published reporting does not establish that Netanyahu was given the date of October 7, a detailed Hamas battle plan or specific intelligence describing the border breaches, rocket attacks, hostage-taking operation and mass assault that ultimately occurred. The allegation is instead that Netanyahu received a high-level warning from the UAE president identifying Sinwar and Hamas as preparing a major operation shortly before the deadliest attack in Israel’s history.

Investigators Say Netanyahu Never Passed the Warning to Security Chiefs

The most serious component of the investigation is not simply the allegation that Netanyahu received the warning. Eldar and Yuval report that he did not pass the information to Israel’s senior security officials. CNN highlighted that allegation in a September 8 interview with Eldar. During the interview, Eldar said he spent roughly a year and a half investigating the story and claimed to possess confidential sources, documents and records supporting his account. He described an intelligence chain that allegedly began with communications involving Sinwar and Palestinian intermediaries before ultimately reaching an adviser connected to the Emirati leadership.

Eldar told CNN that Sinwar had used the Arabic word “zilzal,” meaning “earthquake,” while discussing a major surprise he was preparing if negotiations involving Gaza did not advance. According to Eldar’s reconstruction, the information moved through intermediaries and eventually reached the UAE leadership, culminating in the alleged call from bin Zayed to Netanyahu.

Independent outlets including the Associated Press, CBS News, AFP, The New Yorker and The Times have subsequently reported on the controversy, but their coverage largely attributes the central allegation to the original Haaretz investigation rather than independently establishing every element of the reported call. CBS News specifically stated that it had not independently confirmed Haaretz’s reporting. That distinction matters: multiple reputable organizations reporting an allegation does not automatically amount to multiple independent confirmations of the underlying event.

Netanyahu Says the Call Never Happened

Netanyahu has issued an unequivocal denial, making this an unusually stark factual dispute. His office says there was no conversation between Netanyahu and bin Zayed during the relevant period and that Netanyahu received no warning from the Emirati president before October 7.

According to Netanyahu’s office, communications with the UAE president were normally conducted through a specialized procedure in which an Emirati representative would bring a secure encrypted communications device to the Prime Minister’s Office. Netanyahu’s office says the Prime Minister’s Office, National Security Council and Military Secretariat reviewed relevant records and found neither a record of the alleged call nor evidence that an Emirati representative entered the Prime Minister’s Office during the period in question.

Netanyahu has also instructed his attorneys to pursue defamation litigation against Haaretz and Eldar over the story, characterizing the report as fabricated and politically motivated. The timing is particularly sensitive because Israel is scheduled to hold national elections on October 27, 2026, and responsibility for the failures surrounding October 7 remains a major political issue.

Haaretz has stood behind its reporting. That leaves two directly conflicting accounts: Eldar says his investigation produced records and sources demonstrating that the conversation occurred, while Netanyahu’s office says its examination of government records demonstrates that it did not.

The UAE Did Not Confirm the Call, but It Did Not Deny It Either

The UAE government’s response requires particularly careful wording because it has sometimes been interpreted as tacit confirmation of the investigation. Officially, however, Abu Dhabi has neither confirmed nor denied the alleged conversation.

In a September 8 statement, the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the government does not comment on media reports or speculation concerning conversations between government leaders. It added that UAE and Israeli government entities have maintained open and direct communications since normalization and that relevant intelligence has been communicated between the appropriate entities when necessary.

Eldar interpreted the UAE statement during his CNN appearance as effectively confirming his reporting, but that is his interpretation rather than an explicit statement by the Emirati government. The UAE’s actual public statement does not say that bin Zayed called Netanyahu, does not confirm that he delivered the alleged warning and does not validate the reported contents of the conversation. At the same time, it conspicuously does not adopt Netanyahu’s categorical assertion that the conversation never occurred. That distinction leaves the UAE in a carefully neutral public position while ensuring that the central factual dispute remains unresolved.

The Warning Allegedly Originated With Sinwar

The reported intelligence chain preceding the alleged phone call makes the investigation particularly significant. According to Eldar’s account, Israeli and Hamas representatives had been involved indirectly in discussions during 2023 concerning arrangements affecting Gaza. Eldar told CNN that the discussions included issues surrounding the blockade and involved Hamas political figure Ghazi Hamad and another Palestinian intermediary.

According to Eldar, Sinwar subsequently disappeared from those discussions before communicating through an intermediary that, if progress was not made, he was preparing a major surprise. Eldar says Sinwar used the word “zilzal,” or “earthquake,” and that the intermediary became sufficiently alarmed to contact a relative connected to an adviser to the UAE leadership. The information, according to the investigation, ultimately reached bin Zayed.

AFP similarly reported that the Haaretz account says Sinwar warned a former Palestinian official that Hamas was preparing a frightening operation he characterized as an “earthquake,” after which the message was passed to an Emirati adviser and eventually the UAE president. If that chain of communication is ultimately substantiated, the warning would be considerably more consequential than a generalized regional-security concern because it allegedly originated with information connected directly to Hamas leadership. However, the publicly available evidence does not currently allow outside observers to independently verify every stage of that chain.

This Is Not Evidence Netanyahu Ordered a “Stand Down”

The distinction between an ignored warning, an intelligence failure and intentional complicity is critical. Nothing in the reporting reviewed for this article establishes that Netanyahu ordered Israeli forces to stand down, deliberately prevented the Israel Defense Forces from defending the Gaza border or knowingly allowed the October 7 attack to proceed. Nor does the reporting establish that Netanyahu knew the precise date, time, scale or tactical details of Hamas’s assault. The allegation is narrower but still potentially serious: that the Israeli prime minister personally received a warning from an important regional ally that Sinwar was preparing a major operation and did not transmit that warning to the security leadership.

If established, that could represent an extraordinary failure of judgment and intelligence communication at the highest level of Israel’s government. It would not, by itself, demonstrate intentional participation in or facilitation of the Hamas attack. Claims of a deliberate “stand down” would require evidence substantially beyond anything contained in the current investigation.

October 7 Was Already a Catastrophic Israeli Intelligence and Security Failure

Hamas-led militants crossed into southern Israel on October 7, 2023, killing roughly 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures cited by the Associated Press and CNN. The assault exposed severe failures across Israel’s political, military and intelligence establishments and shattered assumptions that Hamas was deterred from launching a full scale confrontation.

The broader record has already established that Israel possessed warning signs before the attack. Israeli forces had observed Hamas preparations and training, while senior officials had previously warned about the deteriorating regional security environment. The controversy has always centered partly on how individual pieces of intelligence were assessed, distributed and understood inside a system operating under the assumption that Hamas was primarily interested in maintaining its rule over Gaza rather than initiating a devastating war.

The new UAE allegation matters because, if verified, it would potentially represent something different from another ambiguous intelligence fragment. A personal warning from the president of a major regional partner identifying Sinwar and a coming Hamas operation would raise questions about why that information was not immediately distributed through Israel’s national-security apparatus and incorporated into existing threat assessments.

A Warning Is Not the Same as Detailed Foreknowledge of October 7

Hindsight creates its own analytical danger. Information that appears unmistakable after a catastrophic event can have been considerably less clear beforehand, particularly inside intelligence systems processing enormous volumes of contradictory information.

Even if the alleged UAE call is ultimately authenticated, it would not prove that Netanyahu knew Hamas would attack specifically on October 7 or that he understood the scale and tactical design of the operation. Based on the currently available reporting, the alleged warning concerned a major Hamas action capable of producing bloodshed and regional destabilization, not a detailed blueprint for the assault.

The relevant questions are therefore more precise: Was the warning delivered? What exactly did bin Zayed tell Netanyahu? Did Netanyahu communicate that information to anyone else? Did Israeli intelligence agencies already possess the same information through separate channels? How credible was it considered at the time? Could its distribution have changed Israeli military readiness?

Those questions are difficult, but they are answerable through records, testimony and documentary evidence. They are also more useful than unsupported theories about intentional complicity.

The Dispute Should Be Verifiable Through Records

One of the most striking features of the controversy is that the central allegation should, at least theoretically, be susceptible to documentary verification. A 45 minute secure conversation between the leaders of Israel and the UAE would likely have required logistical arrangements and could have generated contemporaneous communications, scheduling information, access records or other documentation on one or both sides.

Netanyahu’s office says precisely those records undermine the story. It says a review found no call and no visit by the Emirati representative who ordinarily facilitated secure conversations. Eldar says he possesses documents and records supporting the opposite conclusion.

The UAE could potentially possess additional evidence capable of clarifying the dispute, although its government has given no indication that it intends to release diplomatic communications or records. Unless additional primary evidence becomes public, the allegation remains substantial but contested.

The Investigation Intensifies the Fight Over Accountability for October 7

The controversy arrives amid continuing political conflict inside Israel over responsibility for the October 7 failures. Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that Israel’s security establishment failed to provide adequate warning before the attack, while critics have argued that ultimate responsibility rests with the government that presided over the country’s national-security strategy.

The new allegation directly intersects with that dispute because it raises the possibility that information may have reached Netanyahu personally before the attack without reaching the security chiefs whose failure to warn him he has subsequently emphasized. Israeli opposition leaders have seized on the report, while Netanyahu has accused his opponents and Haaretz of exploiting a false story during an election campaign.

Political consequences, however, cannot determine whether the underlying allegation is true. The evidence must. A comprehensive investigation would need to establish the full intelligence timeline preceding October 7, including what information existed, who received it, how it was evaluated, which warnings reached Netanyahu, which reached Israel’s military and intelligence agencies, and whether institutional assumptions about Hamas caused decision-makers to discount information that should have triggered heightened readiness.

The Central Question Remains Unresolved

The available evidence does not support claims that Netanyahu ordered a stand down or intentionally allowed Hamas to attack Israel. It also does not yet permit the UAE warning allegation to be presented as conclusively established fact. What can be stated is that Eldar and Yuval have published a highly specific allegation: that approximately 10 days before October 7, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed personally warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was preparing a major Hamas operation, that Netanyahu reacted without apparent alarm and that he did not pass the warning to Israel’s security chiefs. Eldar says his investigation is backed by confidential sources, documents and records.

Netanyahu says the conversation never happened and says Israeli government records prove it. The UAE has declined to confirm or deny the alleged conversation while acknowledging that intelligence is exchanged between the two countries through established channels. Independent news organizations have confirmed the existence of the dispute and reported its details, but the central allegation remains rooted primarily in the Eldar Yuval investigation rather than publicly released primary evidence.

That makes the next phase less about political rhetoric than documentation. After an attack that killed roughly 1,200 people, resulted in 251 hostages being taken into Gaza and triggered years of devastating regional warfare, establishing precisely what Israel’s political and security leadership knew before October 7 is not a minor historical dispute. It is fundamental to understanding how one of the most consequential security failures in Israeli history was allowed to happen.

Sources & Further Reading

• Associated Press — UAE Warned Netanyahu of Major Hamas Operation Days Before October 7, Report Says
• CNN — Shlomi Eldar Interview and Investigation Discussion
• UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs — Official Statement on the Reporting
• CBS News — Netanyahu Denies Receiving UAE Warning Before October 7
• The Times of Israel — Report on the Alleged UAE Warning
• AFP — Netanyahu Under Fire Over Report of UAE Warning
• The Times — Netanyahu Moves to Sue Over UAE Warning Report
• The New Yorker — The Warning Benjamin Netanyahu Ignored