Netanyahu Denies UAE Warning Before Oct. 7 Attack
Left 0%
Center 33%
Right 67%
0 left · 1 center · 2 right
What happened
Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that United Arab Emirates President Mohamed bin Zayed warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone in late September 2023 that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was planning a major attack, roughly 10 days before Hamas’s October 7 assault that killed about 1,200 people and abducted 251. The report, citing senior foreign sources and a book by Israeli journalists, said Netanyahu did not pass the warning to top security officials; former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar and former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi later said they were never told of an Emirati warning. Netanyahu’s office denied that any such conversation occurred, said checks by the Prime Minister’s Office, National Security Council, and Military Secretariat found no record of a call or UAE visitor in that period, called the claim malicious libel, and said it would sue Haaretz. The dispute has entered Israel’s campaign ahead of the October 27 legislative elections.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 3 articles
2 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to Haaretz. Netanyahu’s office denied part of it on the record.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Haaretz, Amos Nadan and Naftali Bennett
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 3 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Haaretz
- Unnamed sources 1 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “three senior foreign sources familiar with the conversation”, “an adviser to the Emirati president”
- On-record denial 3
- A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Netanyahu’s office (Daily Caller, Sep 8, 21:46 UTC); Benjamin Netanyahu (Washington Examiner, Sep 8, 22:34 UTC); Benjamin Netanyahu (CBS News, Sep 9, 15:50 UTC)
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 8, 21:46 UTC by Daily Caller, crediting Haaretz, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage reports that Haaretz alleged the UAE president warned Netanyahu of a Hamas attack before Oct. 7. His office says no such call took place. The Daily Caller and Washington Examiner part ways on detail, with one tracing a September Shin Bet briefing before a UAE call and the other saying Sinwar told the Emirati president to pass the warning. Left-leaning coverage has not reported the story, so those readers miss the allegation and the denial.
Right-leaning coverage also splits on emphasis: the Daily Caller leads with a warning Netanyahu "dismissed" and never shared, while the Washington Examiner leads with the denial as blame for the massacre dominates an election.
Does the UAE have its own record of whether its president called Netanyahu in late September 2023?
Bottom line
Left-leaning news has not carried this story. Readers there would not know the Daily Caller reported that former security chiefs were never told of an alleged UAE warning Netanyahu's office called an "absolute lie."
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Haaretz reported that UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed warned Netanyahu of a Hamas attack before Oct. 7, which Netanyahu's office says never happened
- Netanyahu allegedly failed to share the UAE warning with top security officials
- Netanyahu's office called the Haaretz investigation an absolute lie and said he neither spoke with bin Zayed nor received a warning from him
- Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar and former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi said they were never informed of the Emirati president's warning
- Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel separately warned Netanyahu of an unusual Hamas operation around the same period
The Right View
Daily Caller and Washington Examiner reported Haaretz’s account that bin Zayed personally warned Netanyahu in a 45-minute call that Sinwar was preparing a major operation that could cause significant bloodshed and undermine the Abraham Accords, and that Netanyahu replied calmly that Hamas was more likely to act in the West Bank and that Israel was prepared. They said the warning allegedly originated with Sinwar via a Fatah intermediary, reached Shin Bet around September 15, and was discussed at a September 17 security meeting that did not conclude Hamas was preparing a massive Gaza assault; they also cited a separate Egyptian intelligence warning. Both outlets highlighted Netanyahu’s categorical denial, non-responses from the Israeli and UAE embassies and the IDF, expert comments that a clear warning might have prompted border reinforcement, Gaza casualty figures, and the role of October 7 blame in the election season.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive in structure: named actors, a specific alleged call, cited foreign sources and a named book, and a detailed official denial that claims records were checked. Established facts are that Haaretz published the allegation and stood by it, Netanyahu’s office denied any conversation and announced a defamation suit, Naftali Bennett said he believed the report, and the UAE neither confirmed nor denied the call. Whether the phone call happened and whether a warning was withheld from security chiefs remains alleged, not independently corroborated in the public record. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the book’s documentation, independent corroboration of the call, UAE confirmation or denial, the lawsuit, and any official inquiry or election-related records.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.