By Mars Strangelove Jr. and Yiannis Damellos
Three years after October 7, 2023, a strange trail has led back to the beginning
It starts with an article in Haaretz. On Sept. 8, the Israeli newspaper reported that UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan had spoken with Benjamin Netanyahu roughly 10 days before the Hamas attack and warned him that Yahya Sinwar was preparing a major operation. According to the report, the Emirati leader warned that the attack could cause bloodshed, destabilize the region and damage the Abraham Accords. Netanyahu, Haaretz reported, reacted calmly and said Israel was prepared for possible scenarios, while apparently believing any major threat was more likely to emerge from the West Bank. Netanyahu’s office called the story an “absolute lie,” saying he had not spoken with Sheikh Mohamed during that period and had received no warning from him. That might have been the end of the story — one explosive allegation, one emphatic denial — had Netanyahu not quietly boarded a plane.
On Sunday, Sept. 27, the Israeli prime minister flew secretly to Abu Dhabi and met Sheikh Mohamed. The UAE eventually confirmed the visit through its state news agency, WAM, saying that the two men discussed bilateral relations and ways to strengthen them. Netanyahu’s office said the trip was made at the Emirati president’s invitation and concerned relations and regional challenges. Reuters, meanwhile, cited Israeli officials who said the meeting lasted about six hours and focused on Iran. But the Associated Press, citing two people briefed on the trip, offered a very different and considerably more intriguing account: the meeting lasted about an hour, and one source said the subject was the "Haaretz" report itself. According to that source, Netanyahu asked Sheikh Mohamed to publicly deny that he had warned him before October 7.
And there, if one were writing a detective novel, the door would close.
Because the crucial question is no longer simply whether the warning existed. It is this: "Why was Netanyahu sufficiently concerned about the report to fly secretly to Abu Dhabi and meet the very man who was alleged to have delivered the warning?" We do not know the answer. The UAE has not confirmed that Sheikh Mohamed warned Netanyahu in 2023. It has also not publicly endorsed the account of what was discussed in the latest meeting. Its Foreign Ministry has said only that the two countries maintain open and direct lines of communication and that relevant intelligence is shared when necessary.
Yet, there is another clue.
The Shin Bet filed a complaint with Israel’s military censor after Channel 12 disclosed Netanyahu’s trip while his aircraft was still outside Israeli airspace. The prime minister’s office said the disclosure endangered Netanyahu, his wife and members of the delegation, including the Mossad chief. The Shin Bet called it a serious breach of military censorship. The Mossad also condemned the disclosure. That tells us something about the sensitivity of the journey, although it tells us nothing by itself about what Netanyahu and Sheikh Mohamed actually discussed.
Then another piece of the old puzzle appeared.
The Atlantic has separately reported that Egypt’s intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, made a rare visit to Israel shortly before October 7 and warned Israeli officials that Gaza was approaching an explosion. The magazine says its reporting is based on dozens of sources and also reports that Sheikh Mohamed called Netanyahu after receiving intelligence from Egyptian and Palestinian sources about the possibility of an imminent attack. Netanyahu’s office has denied receiving such warnings, while Kamel has also disputed aspects of the account. Again, this does not prove the Haaretz story. But it does make the larger question harder to dismiss: what warnings reached Israel's political leadership before October 7, through whom, and what happened to them afterward?
That question has now landed directly in Israel’s election campaign. Israelis vote on Oct. 27, and Netanyahu is again presenting himself as the man uniquely capable of protecting the country. Yet the October 7 attack remains the central rupture in that image: the prime minister who built his political identity around security presided over the greatest security failure in modern Israeli history. Reuters reported Tuesday that Netanyahu is once again using his familiar “protector” campaign strategy, while the allegations concerning pre-October 7 warnings have become part of the political fight over responsibility.
And so our mystery has acquired an uncomfortable shape.
There is a newspaper report and there is a categorical denial. There is an alleged warning from an Arab leader and separate reports of warnings from Egypt, and three years later there is a secret flight to Abu Dhabi and two different accounts of what happened inside the meeting. There is an alleged request for a denial and a government confirmation that the meeting occurred — but no confirmation of the warning. And there is an election only weeks away in which Netanyahu’s credibility as Israel’s protector is itself on trial.
We should resist the temptation to fill the empty spaces. We could also come up with several possible scenarios to entertain the audience, like perhaps the "Haaretz" report is wrong. Perhaps the warning was delivered through intelligence channels and later remembered differently. Perhaps Netanyahu went to Abu Dhabi principally to discuss Iran and the alleged warning occupied only a few minutes of the conversation. Or perhaps the report struck a nerve because something in it came dangerously close to the truth.
We do not know. But others do.
Still one fact remains: Three years after October 7, the man alleged to have warned Netanyahu about the coming attack has now met him behind closed doors — and, according to a source cited by the Associated Press, was asked to deny that he ever gave the warning.
The question is not whether that proves anything.
The question is why, after all these years, this particular ghost was important enough for Benjamin Netanyahu to get on a plane.
No comments:
Post a Comment