Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told lawyers to commence a defamation case against Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper that reported in September 2024 that United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed had warned him about an impending Hamas attack.
The report, extracted from a book by Israeli journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval in 2024, claims that the UAE president told Netanyahu through a special phone call that Hamas chief Yahya sinwar had planned a major operation—described in the report as an “earthquake.” According to the newspaper, the conversation was held in the final days of September 2023, not long before the unintended 7 October assault that killed 1,200 people and saw 251 hostages taken to Gaza.
Netanyahu’s office has issued a statement that no warnings were received, calling the allegation part of a sinister plot aimed at undermining his leadership. The prime minister also dismissed Haaretz’s claims as “lies” and claims that the story timed poorly to bat up political pressure ahead of a national election being held on 27 October that many view as a referendum on his conduct.
Haaretz remains defiant, stating that its reporting was the product of extensive investigative research involving dozens of sources, documents and correspondences. The newspaper’s lawyers have not been deterred by the prime minister’s legal threats, arguing that the story deals with a matter of public importance and that the press has a duty to bring such information to the public eye.
UAE officials have neither confirmed nor denied that such a conversation took place. In a brief statement, the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had been communicating intelligence with Israel “to maintain direct lines of communication” since a partnership was established five years earlier.
Four opposition leaders—Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yair Golan—issued a joint statement demanding an investigation into the 7 October incident, claiming that Netanyahu and his inner circle were unfit for continued office. The message comes as critics intensify scrutiny of the Israeli security apparatus and whether it should have acted on the alleged warning.
The case remains in its early stages, but it underscores the volatile domestic politics surrounding Israel’s response to the 7 October offensive. It also highlights the broader debate about the role of the media in influencing national security and elections. The outcome could determine how scrutiny of past Israeli policy decisions will proceed ahead of the upcoming national vote.
