US destroys 5 Iranian tankers, Trump’s $45,000 gifts to aides, mail ballots rejected

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly reacted with relative calm when warned by the president of the United Arab Emirates that Hamas was preparing a major offensive just 10 days before the October 7, 2023 attacks. According to a report by the Israeli daily Haaretz, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed explicitly cautioned that the operation would lead to bloodshed, destabilize the region, and undermine the Abraham Accords.

The Prime Minister's office has dismissed the account as an absolute lie, asserting that Netanyahu did not speak with bin Zayed during the period in question and received no such warning. The dispute emerges as Israel prepares for national elections next month, where the government's handling of the October 7 massacre — which left some 1,200 people dead and 251 hostages taken, remains a central campaign issue.

Related YouTube video

The Reported Warning and Netanyahu's Response

The details provided by Haaretz suggest a direct head-of-state intervention. During the reported conversation, President Mohammed bin Zayed allegedly identified Yahya Sinwar, then the leader of Hamas in Gaza, as the architect of a looming operation. The warning was not merely about a tactical strike but a strategic threat that could dismantle the normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab and Muslim-majority nations known as the Abraham Accords.

Despite the gravity of the alert, Netanyahu reportedly maintained a composed demeanor. He assured the UAE leader that Israel was prepared for any scenario. Crucially, the report claims Netanyahu shifted the perceived threat vector, suggesting that any imminent attack was more likely to emerge from the occupied West Bank rather than from the Gaza Strip.

This reported miscalculation stands in stark contrast to the scale of the resulting assault. In addition to the 1,200 deaths and 251 hostages on October 7, the ensuing conflict has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Israelis, mostly soldiers, and more than 73,650 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Conflicting Official Accounts

The Prime Minister's office has not only denied the conversation but has challenged the mechanism of the reported warning. Official spokespeople stated that any relevant intelligence would have been communicated through established intelligence channels rather than a direct call between heads of state.

The United Arab Emirates has maintained a more ambiguous position. While the UAE Foreign Ministry did not explicitly confirm the reported call with Netanyahu, it did state that the two countries maintain direct communication channels and that relevant intelligence is exchanged when necessary.

Source	Position on UAE-Netanyahu Warning
Haaretz	Bin Zayed warned Netanyahu 10 days before attack; Netanyahu reacted with calm.
PM's Office	Report is an absolute lie; no such conversation occurred.
UAE Foreign Ministry	Confirms direct channels and intelligence exchange exist; no explicit confirmation of call.

Election Pressures and Demands for Inquiry

The timing of this report coincides with an intense campaign period for next month's national elections. For Netanyahu's opponents, the allegation provides concrete ammunition to argue that the October 7 failure was not merely a systemic intelligence lapse but a personal failure of leadership.

Gadi Eisenkot, a former top general and a primary challenger in the upcoming election, has accused the Prime Minister of ignoring dozens of warnings before the attack. Similarly, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has stated that Netanyahu bears personal and direct responsibility for the failure that led to thousands of Israeli deaths.

These accusations intensify as Netanyahu continues to resist calls for an official government inquiry into the events of October 7. The refusal to launch a formal investigation, paired with reports of ignored high-level warnings, has turned the Prime Minister's accountability into a defining pillar of the electoral contest.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the specific nature of the UAE's warning?

According to Haaretz, President Mohammed bin Zayed warned Netanyahu 10 days before October 7 that Yahya Sinwar was planning a major operation that would cause bloodshed and threaten the Abraham Accords.

How did Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly justify his lack of alarm?

The report states Netanyahu believed Israel was prepared for any scenario and argued that a potential attack was more likely to come from the West Bank than from Gaza.

Has the UAE government confirmed the report?

The UAE Foreign Ministry has not explicitly confirmed the specific conversation but noted that direct communication channels and intelligence exchanges between Israel and the UAE are maintained.

The resolution of this dispute remains elusive as both the Prime Minister's office and the UAE avoid a definitive, public confirmation of the call's contents. However, the evidence of whether Netanyahu ignored a direct warning from a key regional ally will be a central point of contention in the national elections next month.

Regional Stability and the Abraham Accords

The reported warning from President Mohammed bin Zayed focused on the potential for the operation to trigger widespread bloodshed and destabilize the region. A primary concern cited by Haaretz was the risk to the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements that connected Israel with several Arab and Muslim-majority nations.

The clash of narratives between the UAE and Israel persists. While the UAE Foreign Ministry has not explicitly confirmed the conversation, it has verified that the two nations maintain direct communication channels and exchange relevant intelligence when necessary. Conversely, the Prime Minister's office maintains that any intelligence regarding the October 7 attacks would have been handled through professional intelligence channels rather than a head-of-state phone call.

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times and Huffpost, the political stakes are elevated by the fact that these allegations surface during the final stretch of the campaign. The dispute over whether Netanyahu ignored dozens of warnings, as claimed by Eisenkot, or followed standard intelligence protocols transforms the upcoming vote into a referendum on the Prime Minister's judgment.

With national elections scheduled for next month, the next step will be the determination of whether the government will finally concede to demands for a formal inquiry or if the electoral outcome will dictate the level of accountability for the intelligence failure.