The question in Israel is no longer limited to whether UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed warned Benjamin Netanyahu of a major move planned by Hamas before the October 7 attack. Rather, it is also related to who conveyed the story, where the trace of the supposed communication disappeared, and why the information, if true, was not transformed into a security alert to prevent the disaster.
The case began with an investigation published by the Haaretz newspaper, which claimed that Bin Zayed, about a week and a half before the attack, made a call that lasted about 45 minutes with Netanyahu, during which he warned him that Yahya Sinwar was planning a major move that could lead to bloodshed, destabilize the region, and threaten the Abraham Accords.
Netanyahu completely denied the story, and said that a review of his records did not reveal any contact with the Emirati president during the aforementioned period or the entry of his representative to convey a similar warning. He was not content with political denials, but announced that he had directed his lawyer to prepare a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper and journalist Shlomi Eldar.
The office of Israeli President Isaac Herzog became involved in the case after trying to link his name to the conversations he was having with Bin Zayed before the attack. The office issued a clarification in which it said that Herzog’s contacts with the Emirati president dealt with Israeli social and internal issues and relations between the two countries, and did not address “Hamas,” Sinwar, or any security warning.
But Herzog’s statement did not resolve the root of the issue. He denied knowledge of the warning, without confirming or denying the alleged contact between Bin Zayed and Netanyahu. At the same time, Abu Dhabi has remained silent and has not, so far, issued a public position supporting the Haaretz story or supporting the Israeli Prime Minister’s denial.
As for the newspaper, it announced its commitment to its investigation, which turned the file into an open confrontation between a media institution and a prime minister preparing to run in decisive elections. What increases the sensitivity of the issue is that it does not deal with an ordinary political dispute, but rather the possibility of an external warning reaching the highest level in the state before the most serious attack to which Israel was exposed.
The repercussions extend beyond the borders of the Israeli interior. If it is proven that the warning actually arrived, it will be added to the series of indicators that preceded the attack and were not translated into a security decision. However, if Netanyahu is able to prove that the contact did not take place, the case will turn into one of the most serious professional and legal crises facing Haaretz.
Waiting for an Emirati word or for the emergence of recordings and documents that resolve the issue, the two stories remain opposite each other: a newspaper confirms that it owns its sources, and a prime minister who says that his books do not contain a trace of the call.
But the most important question will not disappear, even if the dispute goes to court: Did the warning not actually arrive, or did it arrive and no one listened to it?
