Netanyahu Clings to Power as October 7 Warnings Haunt Israel's Election Campaign

Three years after Hamas-led militants breached Israel's southern border in an assault that left deep scars across the nation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. With Israelis set to elect a new parliament on October 27, the question of what the country's longest-serving leader knew in advance of the October 7 attacks has become a defining issue of the campaign.

The stakes could hardly be higher. The events of that day remain a national trauma, and voters are being asked to decide whether Netanyahu bears responsibility for the intelligence failures that allowed the attack to unfold — or whether, as he insists, the blame lies elsewhere.

At the centre of the storm is a report published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on September 8, which alleged that Netanyahu received an explicit warning from a foreign leader before the assault. According to extracts from a book by journalists cited in the report, three foreign senior sources and a Palestinian adviser to the President of the United Arab Emirates confirmed that Emirati leader Mohamed bin Zayed telephoned Netanyahu ahead of the attack.

During what was described as a 45-minute conversation, bin Zayed reportedly told Netanyahu that Yahya Sinwar, then Hamas's leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation that could result in "bloodshed" and even "destabilise the region". According to the account, bin Zayed was taken aback by Netanyahu's calm response, with the Israeli leader saying simply that Israel was prepared for any scenario.

The report further claimed that bin Zayed later relayed details of the conversation to former CIA director William J. Burns. Crucially, Netanyahu is said not to have briefed the Shin Bet domestic security agency, the Mossad intelligence service, or his army chief of staff about the call.

Netanyahu's office has forcefully denied the allegations, describing the report as a "wicked fabrication with clear political timing" orchestrated by left-wing Israeli officials. The prime minister has since filed a defamation lawsuit against Haaretz, but the newspaper has refused to back down.

Its position has been bolstered by The New York Times, which confirmed the report and added further details. The Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal have also published accounts claiming that Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel warned Netanyahu days before Hamas militants crossed into Israel.

The controversy escalated further with reports that Netanyahu made a secret trip to Abu Dhabi on September 27, meeting bin Zayed for roughly an hour — a visit first reported by Israel's Channel 12. One source said the discussion centred on the Haaretz report, and that Netanyahu asked the Emirati leader to deny having warned him of an impending attack. Netanyahu's office dismissed that claim as "fake news", while the official Emirates News Agency said only that the two sides met to discuss bilateral relations.

Rather than accept responsibility, Netanyahu has consistently sought to deflect blame onto Israel's security establishment — a stance that stands in sharp contrast to the conduct of several senior officials. Former military chief of staff Herzi Halevi took responsibility for the failures that enabled the October 7 attacks and resigned in January 2025. An internal Israel Defense Forces investigation subsequently acknowledged the assault as one of the military's "greatest failures".

Months later, the government dismissed Ronen Bar, the head of Shin Bet. The decision followed an internal report on the October 7 attack, though Netanyahu also cited an ongoing "lack of trust" as grounds for removal. Bar hit back in a letter, calling the prime minister's arguments "unsubstantiated accusations" and asserting that the true motive was to "prevent investigations into the events leading up to October 7".

The political context makes the allegations especially potent. Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, is seeking another term at the head of a government that has already weathered intense scrutiny over the security failures of three years ago. For many voters, the election is a referendum not only on his leadership but on accountability itself.

His defenders argue that the warnings now being cited are unproven and politically motivated, surfacing at precisely the moment they could do maximum damage to his campaign. They point to the denials from his office and the legal action against Haaretz as evidence that the claims are part of a coordinated effort to unseat him.

Yet the cumulative weight of reporting from multiple international outlets has made the allegations difficult to dismiss. The involvement of the New York Times, The Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal has given the story a reach beyond Israel's domestic media landscape, ensuring that questions about Netanyahu's foreknowledge will follow him into polling day and beyond.

What happens next depends largely on the electorate. If Netanyahu's base holds firm, he could yet secure another term despite the mounting revelations. But if enough voters conclude that he failed to act on credible warnings — or that he is more focused on evading responsibility than addressing it — the October 7 attacks may prove to be the issue that finally ends his long political career.