The revelations come from research for an upcoming book Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment, written by journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval, who writes for Haaretz.
United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan raised the alarm directly with Netanyahu during a 45-minute conversation, three senior foreign sources familiar with the exchange told the Israeli newspaper, and reportedly warned that Sinwar was preparing a major operation.
Netanyahu reportedly responded that he believed Hamas intended to operate in the West Bank and assured the Emirati leader that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
The warning was apparently never passed to Israel’s top security officials. Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar and former IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi both told Haaretz they had not been informed about the conversation.
An opportunity for a final solution to the Palestinian problem?
Editorial Stance:Haaretz aligns with Israel’s secular, progressive, and liberal intelligentsia. It is openly critical of right-wing Israeli leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and frequently publishes stances opposing the military occupation of Palestinian territories. [1, 2, 3]
Sure, because the publications that heavily support Netanyahu would certainly be putting this on their front page. Also, Fox News will have a full length documentary on the connection between the President and the Ep-stein files, scheduled to air on the 7th of never.
“An Israeli newspaper says Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was directly warned by the president of the United Arab Emirates that Hamas was planning a major offensive just days before the militant group attacked on…”
Any idea which Israeli newspaper they are quoting,
Ya know, someone that once believed that Paul Pelosi was attacked by his gay lover because you were too trusting of the source probably should not turn to an ad hominem fallacy to discredit this source.
Especially, since the report is based on a book to be published - and not something they sourced from their own reporting:
The report, published in the Haaretz newspaper, was based on findings from an upcoming book by Israeli journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruti Yuval.
Now, would you like to attempt to discredit the author too?
Shlomi Eldar is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor’s Israel Pulse. For the past two decades, he has covered the Palestinian Authority and especially the Gaza Strip for Israel’s Channels 1 and 10, and has reported on the emergence of Hamas. In 2007, he was awarded the Sokolov Prize, Israel’s most important media award, for this work.
[Edit]More:
The Haaretz report cited a new book, “Kidnapped: 843 Days of Abandonment,” by journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval, based on interviews with dozens of sources including senior officials in Israel and around the world. It said three senior foreign officials were updated on the contents of the 45-minute phone call at the end of September, and it cited a Palestinian adviser to Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed who emigrated from Gaza to the UAE and had direct knowledge of the conversation.
Multiple sources. Shouldn’t be too hard to determine just who would have knowledge of such a call. Looking pretty damning.
It seems to be common. Before 9/11, GWB ignored several intelligence reports that Bin Laden was determined to strike us, and that there were activities consistent with intentions to hijack planes. In hindsight, he was stupid. At the time, he likely received dozens of reports a week about threats. Hard to know which ones to take seriously.
There is a lot of debate around the FDR question. Intelligence wasn’t as reliable as it is today, of course. I tend to think he didn’t know, nor anyone else in power. The Japanese weren’t stupid (well, that attack is ill-conceived, but otherwise…). They had deception operations in place, and strict radio silence from the fleet. And we hadn’t broken their code yet.
I’m not the only one who spots bias, some make a business out of it…
GoogleAI:
Ground News is a news aggregation platform that lets readers compare how different media outlets report the same story across the political spectrum. [1, 2]
How It Works
Media Bias Indicators: It labels articles with political bias ratings (from left to right) using data from independent monitoring groups like AllSides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. [1]
Blindspot Feeds: It highlights stories that receive heavy coverage from one side of the political spectrum while being largely ignored or underreported by the other. [1]
Side-by-Side Comparison: Users can view multiple headlines and summaries for a single event to see which facts or perspectives are emphasized or omitted. [1, 2]
Am I always right? No, but some people want us all to be mindless drones. No thanks!
It’s pretty well established that FDR/government knew something was up, but the idea that the Japanese would travel halfway around the world to strike a newly inhabited US base (prior to 1940 the US Pacific fleet was headquartered on the West Coast, although the base had existed for quite some time.)
The best guesses were that they would strike the Philippines where MacArthur commanded an army, or run deeper into China and try to consolidate territory there. The strike on Pearl Harbor was particularly audacious, but not unimagined. In fact a war games scenario in the 1930’s demonstrated how to do it (even including the time of day/week to strike) but it was deemed so far outside the realm of possibility the results were ignored by the hidebound and unimaginative Naval commanders.
In some ways 9/11 was another demonstration of the “lack of imagination” that often confronts the military. Adolph took advantage of that with his strike through the Ardennes, which military strategists “knew” was impossible to traverse. And it was almost a success.
Spotting bias isn’t the problem. Assuming bias on the part of the reader [you] is the problem - especially when the reader [you] did not take time to comprehend that that article in question is simply quoting a book.
In other words, If Musk quoted the book on X, it shouldn’t change how you, the reader, perceive the fact that it is the book that is making the claim, not the news article.
And on an unrelated tangent, you turn to quoting AI too often and too much of it (i.e. copy and paste large sections of it). It is rather annoying and makes people infer you are lazy. I doubt I am the only one with that opinion. I have no desire to read a very long AI response. Again, I doubt I am the only one with that opinion. Take that for what it is worth.
Google AI:
Does quoting AI often make one appear lazy?
Yes, frequently quoting or pasting unedited AI text often makes a person look lazy because it signals a lack of personal effort, critical thought, and genuine understanding. [1, 2]
In recent days, the debate in Israel has reached a fever pitch after the Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal published reports that then-Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel also warned Netanyahu about Gaza in the days before Oct. 7.
On Sunday, Netanyahu flew to Abu Dhabi and requested that MBZ explicitly deny that a warning call about Oct. 7 took place in late 2023, said a person with knowledge of the meeting who, like others quoted in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
…
On Monday, Ronen Bar, the former director of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, sued Netanyahu for defamation, accusing the prime minister of “trying to deflect fire from himself by hurling accusations at the person who warned him in real time.”
…
The Emirates’ refusal to disavow the reports of advance warnings is particularly striking because it is the Arab country that has stood closest to Netanyahu over the past three years even as his international standing plummeted.
