Netanyahu to File Libel Lawsuit Against Haaretz Over UAE October 7 Warning Report

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally instructed his legal counsel to draft and file a libel lawsuit against the Israeli newspaper *Haaretz*, following the publication of a high-profile report claiming that the United Arab Emirates had previously warned him about the impending Hamas assault on October 7, 2023.

The legal action announced by the Prime Minister's Office reflects an escalating clash between the executive leadership and critical press outlets over the dissemination of intelligence ahead of the cross-border attack. According to the contentious news report, authorities in the UAE had purportedly communicated vital advance warnings to the Israeli head of government before the offensive was launched.

In addition to targeting the publishing company itself, the forthcoming defamation lawsuit will directly name investigative journalist Shlomi Eldar, who reported and authored the piece for *Haaretz*. Netanyahu’s legal team emphasized that both the writer and the media organization would be held legally accountable for what the administration describes as an entirely unfounded piece of reporting.

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a categorical rejection of the allegations, branding the entire narrative as completely fabricated from start to finish. Official spokespersons maintained that there was no factual basis to the story and that no contact whatsoever occurred between Netanyahu and Emirati officials during the critical pre-attack timeline.

According to the official timeline released by the prime minister's aides, there was an absolute absence of communication between Netanyahu and the United Arab Emirates starting from the beginning of September 2023 until the October 7 attack transpired. The administration reiterated that no secret or official channels were engaged during this period.

To substantiate its vehement denial, the Prime Minister’s Office stated that comprehensive internal reviews were conducted into governmental and administrative logs. This rigorous assessment included an exhaustive examination of the prime minister's personal and official telephone communication records throughout the weeks leading up to the assault.

The internal investigation extended beyond telephone call registers to include security checkpoints and building entry logs for the executive complex. According to the Prime Minister’s Office, these visitor records conclusively showed that no representative from the United Arab Emirates entered the Prime Minister's Office at any point during that entire timeframe.

Moving beyond administrative refutations, the Prime Minister’s Office characterized the publication as a malicious and politically calculated smear. Government spokespersons labeled the story an integral element of a sinister plot orchestrated by left-wing political opponents seeking to inflict political damage ahead of upcoming electoral contests.

The legal dispute unfolds during an exceptionally sensitive political environment, as Netanyahu prepares to lead his ruling Likud faction into a critical general election scheduled for October 27. The prime minister is actively fighting to retain his governing authority amidst unfavorable polling numbers and persistent public questions regarding his political future.

In its public release, the Prime Minister’s Office warned the public that the contested article was unlikely to be an isolated incident. The administration cautioned that political adversaries would continue to manufacture and disseminate additional false plots and groundless stories as the election campaign gathered momentum in the weeks ahead.

As part of its extensive pushback, the Prime Minister’s Office directed sharp blame toward prominent security leaders, explicitly citing Ronen Bar and Herzi Halevi. The government’s statement contended that defense and intelligence officials had actually identified clear warning signs of the impending massacre hours before the assault was officially launched.

The announcement specifically faulted Bar and Halevi for failing to notify Netanyahu in a timely manner about the developing threat in the early morning hours of October 7. By directing focus toward these security officials, the prime minister’s team sought to counter any allegations that political leadership had ignored advance warnings.

Despite the threat of litigation and the fierce rhetoric from the Prime Minister’s Office, *Haaretz* showed no indication of backing away from its reporting. In a direct response to the announcement of the impending lawsuit, the newspaper published a statement declaring that it fully stands by its published story.

The impending legal battle between Netanyahu and *Haaretz* sets the stage for a contentious courtroom reckoning over media freedom, journalistic responsibility, and national security oversight. With the October 27 election looming, the libel case is likely to sharpen debate surrounding intelligence failures and political accountability in the lead-up to October 7.