Less than two weeks before the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel, United Arab Emirates (UAE) President Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) reportedly warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about an impending major operation by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. According to authors Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval, Netanyahu did not share these warnings with his security officials, raising questions about the government’s preparedness ahead of the assault. While the UAE Foreign Ministry declined to explicitly confirm the details cited, it acknowledged that intelligence is routinely shared between relevant parties when necessary.

The revelation comes amid heightened debate in Israel following recent reports that then-Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel also alerted Netanyahu to tensions in Gaza in the days before the attack. In response to these claims, Netanyahu traveled to Abu Dhabi on Sunday and reportedly requested that MBZ deny the existence of any warning call. Netanyahu’s office dismissed this allegation as "fake news," while the UAE Foreign Ministry referred to official statements noting discussions on bilateral relations without addressing the purported warning.

The devastating attack by Hamas on October 7 led to the resignation of several senior Israeli officials, including the former army chief of staff and the head of military intelligence, who cited failures in national security. Netanyahu has shifted blame onto his security chiefs, accusing them of missing the warning signs and even of “deliberately” allowing him to remain unaware during the initial stages of the crisis. Ronen Bar, the former head of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against Netanyahu, accusing the prime minister of seeking to divert accountability by attacking those who alerted him in real time.

Despite the controversy, public opinion polls show only marginal shifts, with former military chief Gadi Eisenkot’s party slightly ahead of Netanyahu’s Likud. However, the issue has dominated media coverage and political discourse. Several Israeli security agencies have conducted internal investigations into intelligence failures related to the attack, though the current government has resisted calls for an independent inquiry. Opposition figures, including Eisenkot, have pledged to establish such commissions if elected.

According to Sufian Abu Zaida, a former Palestinian official and intermediary, Sinwar had issued a warning months earlier in September 2023. Sinwar proposed releasing Israeli captives in exchange for easing restrictions on Gaza and freeing Palestinian prisoners. Otherwise, he threatened a major escalation described as an “earthquake.” Abu Zaida said this message was relayed to Israeli security officials and UAE intermediaries, including Mohammad Dahlan, a Palestinian adviser to MBZ, but no specific details or timing of the impending attack were known.

In early 2024, MBZ reportedly told then-CIA Director William J. Burns that he had warned Netanyahu of possible violence but did not share particulars that would have directly anticipated the October 7 assault. Analysts note that the UAE’s reluctance to deny the warnings outright is notable, given the close ties that developed between the two countries following normalization under the Abraham Accords in 2020. Observers suggest that Emirati officials are cautious not to be seen as overly allied with Netanyahu, whose international reputation has suffered, while maintaining strong relations with Israel itself.

Netanyahu’s supporters dismiss the reports as politically motivated attacks aimed at undermining the right-wing government ahead of upcoming elections. The Likud Party described the allegations as “false reports” propagated by left-leaning journalists, while some commentators warned that losses for the Israeli right could lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, Eldar, one of the book’s authors, said he faced legal threats from Likud lawyers accusing him of election interference.

Within Israel’s political landscape, the controversy has shifted attention toward issues of national security and electoral alliances. Some analysts argue Netanyahu might use the debate to deflect criticism over his government’s contentious policies, including the exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jews from mandatory military service. Polling suggests that Eisenkot’s bid to form a government may depend on cooperation with Arab parties, a prospect Netanyahu has frequently portrayed as a security risk in campaign messaging. The renewed focus on pre-attack warnings has, according to a political consultant, transformed the narrative into one centered on security threats and the complexities of forming a majority government amid Israel’s diverse population.