Bennett Confirms Netanyahu Received October 7 Warning
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly endorsed a report alleging that Benjamin Netanyahu received advance intelligence regarding the Hamas assault on 7 October 2023. This assertion follows an investigation by Haaretz which claimed United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan personally contacted the Israeli leader roughly ten days prior to the attack.
Bennett stated he is certain the account is accurate, accusing Netanyahu of criminal negligence for failing to alert security leadership or prepare southern Israel. Despite this strong political stance, Bennett has not disclosed the specific evidence supporting his certainty, leaving the allegation as a political claim rather than a legally proven fact.
The core of the dispute centres on whether a conversation occurred between the two leaders and if Netanyahu withheld that information from Shin Bet, the military, or the security cabinet. Former intelligence chiefs Ronen Bar and Herzi Halevi reportedly confirmed they were never informed of such a warning, creating a stark contrast with Bennett’s public backing of the Haaretz findings.
Netanyahu’s office has firmly rejected these claims, asserting that no conversation took place during the relevant period. Officials reviewed schedules and access logs to find no evidence of contact with the Emirati president, prompting Netanyahu to instruct lawyers to pursue defamation proceedings against Haaretz and journalist Shlomi Eldar.
Haaretz Report Details Emirati President’s Ten-Day Alert
According to the newspaper’s investigation published on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, the alleged warning was delivered approximately ten days before Hamas fighters breached the Gaza boundary. The report details that during a conversation lasting about 45 minutes, the Emirati president warned Netanyahu that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was preparing a major operation.
Bennett responded to this publication by accusing the Prime Minister of failing to take expected actions after receiving such critical information, including convening senior ministers or strengthening defensive preparations.
The Timeline
described in the report also highlights internal friction within the Israeli government prior to the assault. On 1 October, then-Shin Bet director Ronen Bar proposed possible action against senior Hamas figures, yet Netanyahu made no immediate decision on the matter. This sequence of events suggests a period where intelligence was gathered but not acted upon by the highest levels of command.
The attack itself occurred on the morning of 7 October, resulting in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people and the taking of 251 hostages. Haaretz’s investigation intensified political pressure for full disclosure regarding what the Prime Minister knew before the violence erupted. This scrutiny comes as Israel prepares for an election scheduled for 27 October 2026, placing responsibility for the October 7 events at the centre of the campaign.
Opposition Demands Answers as Netanyahu Plans Lawsuit
Following Haaretz’s publication, opposition leaders significantly increased their demands for transparency regarding what Netanyahu knew and when he knew it. Figures such as Gadi Eisenkot, Yair Golan, and Avigdor Liberman joined Bennett in questioning the Prime Minister’s knowledge and actions during the critical days leading up to the assault.
Bennett argued that if the warning was received, Netanyahu should have informed the security establishment immediately. He contended that the Prime Minister failed to call senior ministers together or strengthen preparations in southern Israel, representing a breakdown in national decision-making processes.
In response to these accusations, Netanyahu’s office maintained that he did not speak with the UAE president during the relevant period. The administration stated that reviews of official records produced no evidence of the alleged contact, reinforcing their stance that the report is false and defamatory.
The legal confrontation escalates as Netanyahu announced plans to sue Haaretz and journalist Shlomi Eldar for defamation on Wednesday, 9 September. This move underscores the high stakes involved, with both sides relying on different interpretations of private communications and intelligence protocols that are not fully accessible to the public.
Political Responsibility Questioned Over Intelligence Failure
The immediate question facing the nation is whether a warning reached Israel’s political leadership and was subsequently kept from the agencies capable of responding.
This allegation challenges Netanyahu’s repeated efforts to place primary responsibility for October 7 on intelligence and military officials who, according to the report, were never shown this particular warning.
The October 7 attack was followed by a devastating war in Gaza, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and destroyed much of the territory. Bennett’s claim intensifies questions about ignored intelligence and accountability without proving that Netanyahu deliberately allowed the attack to happen.
What Is Confirmed
is that Bennett backed the report publicly while Netanyahu denied it and threatened legal action. No full state commission has yet resolved what Israel’s leadership knew before 7 October 2023, leaving a significant gap in the official narrative regarding the chain of command and information flow.
An Emirati source familiar with the matter reportedly confirmed the conversation to The Times of Israel, while the UAE government stated it does not comment on reports about private discussions between leaders. This diplomatic silence adds another layer of complexity to the investigation, as external verification remains limited.
The image accompanying recent coverage was noted as political satire, meaning its speech bubbles should not be interpreted as genuine statements or evidence that Netanyahu deliberately allowed the attack. The focus must remain on the verified facts: Bennett’s public support for the report, Netanyahu’s denial, and the ongoing legal and political fallout before the upcoming election.
The situation highlights a profound disagreement over how intelligence was handled in the days preceding the assault.