UAE Denies MBZ Warned Netanyahu of October 7 Attack
Abu Dhabi rejects claims of a direct presidential warning to Israel’s PM, stating security matters are handled by lower-level bodies.
Key points
- UAE officials denied that President MBZ directly warned Netanyahu of an October 7 attack, citing institutional protocols.
- Haaretz reported a 45-minute call occurred, a claim Netanyahu denies and plans to sue over.
- The issue has become a central topic in Israel's upcoming election campaign regarding intelligence sharing.
United Arab Emirates officials have firmly rejected allegations that President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan directly warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of an imminent Hamas attack in the weeks preceding October 7, 2023. The denial, issued in response to inquiries from state-owned media, marks a significant escalation in Abu Dhabi’s public stance on the issue, which has become a focal point of political debate in Israel.
According to a report by jpost.com, the UAE official stated that security matters are discussed through relevant institutional bodies rather than at the level of national leaders. This clarification follows earlier, more cautious statements from the UAE Foreign Ministry, which had previously declined to confirm or deny the existence of such high-level communications.
Institutional Communication Protocols
The official source emphasized that the UAE engages in security discussions with other nations through appropriate channels, avoiding detailed exchanges at the presidential level. This position directly contradicts claims that a specific warning regarding Yahya Sinwar’s plans was conveyed personally by MBZ to Netanyahu.
Previously, on September 8, the UAE Foreign Ministry had issued a noncommittal response, stating that the government does not comment on reports or speculation regarding conversations between leaders. However, the ministry did acknowledge that direct lines of communication exist between Israeli and Emirati authorities, and that intelligence sharing occurs between relevant bodies when necessary.
Origins of the Controversy
The dispute stems from an investigation published by Haaretz, which alleged that MBZ called Netanyahu approximately one and a half weeks before the attack. The report claimed the conversation lasted about 45 minutes and that MBZ warned Netanyahu of a significant move planned by Hamas leadership, information that was allegedly not passed on to Israel’s security establishment heads.
The Prime Minister’s Office has denied these claims from the outset, asserting that no such conversation took place during the period in question. Netanyahu has further stated his intention to file a libel lawsuit against Haaretz and the authors of the investigation, highlighting the legal and political tensions surrounding the narrative.
Political Implications in Israel
In recent weeks, the question of which warnings reached the political leadership before October 7 has become a major focus of Israel’s political debate. With elections approaching, parties are increasingly scrutinizing who was exposed to intelligence and whether that information was effectively transmitted to security officials.
The UAE’s latest denial adds a new layer to this controversy, potentially complicating the narrative for those arguing that the government failed to act on specific intelligence. As the election campaign intensifies, the origins and handling of pre-attack communications remain a central point of contention among Israeli political actors.
