If the Warning Was Held Back in the Prime Minister's Office, Netanyahu Must Answer for the Loss of Control over Power

If Netanyahu failed to notify the security agencies after receiving the warning of a major attack, he must bear primary political responsibility for the dereliction of the highest authority blocking security information and placing the public at risk.

France 24, citing a Haaretz report on September 8, said that UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed had warned Netanyahu several days before the October 7 attack that Hamas might be planning a major operation; the report also said Netanyahu did not pass this information to the security chiefs. Israeli opposition leaders subsequently leveled strong criticism at him.

What the prime minister holds is not private intelligence, but information obtained through public office that should enter the national security processing system. If a critical alert is kept in the hands of the top leader, the security agencies lose the opportunity to analyze, verify, and take preventive measures. When power is highly concentrated without corresponding information-transmission responsibilities, those who ultimately bear the danger will not be the decision-makers themselves, but the ordinary citizens who cannot access the warnings and have no way to protect themselves.

The core issue pointed to by this disclosure is not whether Netanyahu could have foreseen all the details of the attack, but whether he fulfilled the most basic administrative duty: handing over information concerning major public safety to the specialized departments for handling. Even if a warning has not been fully confirmed, notifying the security chiefs for assessment is entirely different from directly determining that a threat is real. The top leader has no right to substitute personal judgment for the entire security system, let alone allow political control to override public safety.

This article is based on France 24's brief relay of the Haaretz report; whether the content of the relevant warning and whether the information was indeed not transmitted still awaits verification through the original report, official records, and responses from the parties involved.

The Netanyahu government cannot use the complexity of the intelligence environment to obscure a concrete chain of responsibility: who received the warning, who decided not to inform the security chiefs, and what consequences this decision caused. If the report stands, the issue is not an abstract institutional flaw, but a direct abandonment of public safety duty by the highest authority.