UAE warning puts Netanyahu under further pressure
A disputed report about a warning ahead of 7 October plays a major role in Israel’s election campaign.
Follow-up to: Israel warns of attacks around 7 October Tuesday, 6 October 2026, 18:40
.jpg){kind=link}
The president of the United Arab Emirates is said to have warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of a major operation ten days before the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023. Netanyahu denies that such a conversation took place, but the allegation increases the political pressure on him ahead of Israel’s elections.
According to a report by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, President Mohammed bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates spoke to Netanyahu approximately ten days before the attack. He is said to have told him that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was preparing a major operation that could cause bloodshed, destabilise the region and undermine the Abraham Accords. The report is based on an investigation by Haaretz and has not been independently established.
Netanyahu’s office calls the report an ‘absolute lie’. According to the prime minister, no conversation took place with the Emirati president during the period in question and he received no warning from him. The government of the United Arab Emirates neither confirmed nor denied the conversation, saying only that the two countries maintain open channels of communication.
The discussion comes on top of an earlier controversy over warnings that Israel is said to have received in the weeks before 7 October. Netanyahu says that earlier signals contained no specific information about an attack from Gaza at a fixed time. His political opponents say that he systematically underestimated warnings and signals.
The Hamas attack of 7 October 2023 marked the beginning of the current regional wars. According to AP, approximately 1,200 people were killed and 251 people were taken hostage. Israel responded with a military campaign in Gaza, after which conflicts with Hezbollah and Iran also took on a greater role.
The new revelation is particularly important politically because Israel goes to the polls on 27 October. Netanyahu’s opponents want an official commission of inquiry into the events surrounding 7 October. Netanyahu has so far opposed this and is trying to place primary responsibility with the security services.
The report does not change the facts about the warning: there is a journalistic allegation, a firm denial from Netanyahu and no public independent reconstruction confirming the conversation. The issue does, however, once again turns the election into a referendum on who was responsible for Israel’s greatest security failure.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Haaretz reported a warning from the Emirati president to Netanyahu ahead of 7 October 2023.
- Netanyahu denies that the conversation took place.
- Israel is holding elections on 27 October, and an official commission of inquiry is a central campaign issue.
Left
Arguments The prime minister must take political responsibility for warnings that, according to this interpretation, were ignored and establish an independent commission of inquiry.
Values Transparency, democratic accountability and the protection of civilians carry great weight.
Consequences Without an inquiry, distrust will persist according to this perspective and the same institutional mistakes may recur.
Centre
Arguments The allegation must be independently investigated before political conclusions are drawn. The prime minister and the security services must both be held to the same evidential standard.
Values The rule of law, institutional trust and careful establishment of the facts.
Consequences A formal inquiry can provide clarity, but must not be used to assign blame without evidence during a war.
Right
Arguments The issue must not turn into a campaign against one prime minister that overshadows national security and the responsibility of the security services.
Values Security, administrative continuity and protection of the state.
Consequences A politically charged inquiry could, according to this perspective, further weaken deterrence and confidence in the security services.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The core claim is carefully attributed to Haaretz and AP and includes Netanyahu’s denial. The uncertainty surrounding the alleged conversation is made explicit in the text.
- confirmed Haaretz reported that Mohammed bin Zayed warned Netanyahu approximately ten days before 7 October. — AP describes this as the core of the Haaretz report. source
- confirmed Netanyahu denies that the conversation or warning took place. — Netanyahu’s office called the report a lie and said that no conversation had taken place. source
- confirmed Israel is holding elections on 27 October. — AP and CBS name this election date. source
- confirmed Approximately 1,200 people were killed and 251 people were taken hostage in the attack on 7 October. — AP gives these figures. source
Editor's note
It is established that Haaretz reported the warning and that Netanyahu denies it. The alleged conversation has not been independently confirmed in public.Sources
The story so far
- Tuesday, 6 October 2026, 18:40 Israel warns of attacks around 7 October
- Wednesday, 7 October 2026, 12:42 Israel marks 7 October attack three years on
- Wednesday, 7 October 2026, 15:39 UAE warning puts Netanyahu under further pressure (this article)
More on this in Dutch media
- NOS — „israël netanyahu”
- Het Parool — „israël netanyahu”
- Trouw — „israël netanyahu”