UAE Leader Warned Netanyahu of Hamas Attack Before Oct. 7, Report Claims

A new report by The New York Times, detailed by Israeli media on September 25, 2026, has reignited the debate over what Israeli political and security leadership knew before the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. According to the report, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late September 2023 that Hamas was planning a major offensive. The newspaper cited two individuals with knowledge of the alleged conversation. However, the report noted that the information provided to bin Zayed was not specific enough to determine the attack's nature, whether it involved rockets or a ground incursion, and the original source of the intelligence remains unclear.

Despite the alleged warning, five former senior Israeli officials reportedly were unaware that such intelligence had reached the Israeli security establishment. Furthermore, a meeting minutes document reviewed by The New York Times indicated that on October 1, 2026, six days before the attack, Netanyahu met with senior security officials to discuss the Gaza situation. This meeting agenda did not mention any warning from bin Zayed. Instead, the discussion focused on maintaining calm in Gaza and potentially targeting Hamas figures due to attacks in the West Bank. Netanyahu reportedly opposed military action, fearing it would jeopardize potential diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia.

This account raises questions about why the alleged warning was not raised in a security meeting specifically convened to discuss Gaza's situation shortly before the attack. However, Netanyahu's office has denied receiving such a direct warning from bin Zayed, stating that any relevant intelligence from the UAE would have been channeled through official intelligence conduits. An Emirati official also reportedly denied that a direct intelligence warning was conveyed between the two leaders.

The situation remains contested, with conflicting narratives requiring investigation and transparency. While The New York Times report adds significant details, particularly regarding the October 1 meeting, it does not definitively prove the alleged warning was sufficient to prevent the attack or that its alleged dismissal was the direct cause of the October 7 catastrophe. The article emphasizes that the issue extends beyond a single warning, involving the entire intelligence system's ability to gather, interpret, and act upon information. The report opens a new angle on the ongoing questions surrounding the events leading up to October 7, demanding clear explanations regardless of whether the warning was received and ignored or if the report's narrative is inaccurate.