susanne stephan

Hamas’s leader Sinwar warned Netanyahu about October 7? A new investigative piece by Haaretz has turned the world upside down overnight, but its claims are shaky, contradictory, and in several places simply implausible. It opens with the dramatic assertion that UAE President MBZ warned Netanyahu in September 2023 about Hamas preparing something violent against Israel, risking the destabilization of the region. From there, it veers into far more expansive claims: Israel-Hamas talks to “lift the blockade” through a prisoner swap were allegedly taking place, a supposed message from Sinwar to Netanyahu via UAE-based Palestinian strongman Mohammed Dahlan intermediaries threatened an “earthquake” if Israel didn’t proceed to make a deal with Hamas, and claims that after the 10/7 attack, the terror group offered the “unconditional” release of Israeli civilian hostages shortly after abducting them into Gaza. Here are some thoughts and reactions to the piece: 1. It is likely true that the UAE president warned Netanyahu about intelligence gathered by Emirati services and figures close to Abu Dhabi, including Dahlan, who had maintained contacts with Hamas for years before October 7 after the group reconciled with the controversial Palestinian strongman as part of its effort to counter Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Still, according to the Haaretz report, it appears the warning was nonspecific and sufficiently vague so as not to warrant any particular action. Just as Netanyahu reportedly disclosed his UAE visit during the US-Israeli war with Iran, angering Emirati officials, Abu Dhabi may now be returning the favor by leaking this information a month before a consequential Israeli election in which Netanyahu's political survival is at stake. 2. Israel was interested in a long-term truce with Hamas in Gaza. That was partially why it allowed monthly Qatari cash transfers to the terror group, issued 20,000 work permits for Gazans to work in Israel with plans to expand the program, and supported other economic initiatives aimed at improving conditions in the territory. However, the claim that the release of the two Israeli soldiers' bodies from the 2014 war and the two Israeli civilians held by Hamas would have led to the lifting of the blockade is simply not credible. The blockade was structured in a way that made its full removal impossible while a heavily armed terrorist organization with a vast tunnel network remained in control of Gaza. Hamas faced Arab, regional, and international restrictions and sanctions because of its militant ideology and record of violence; no temporary arrangement or “hudna” with Israel would have fundamentally changed that reality. As long as Hamas governed Gaza, a complete lifting of the blockade was never a realistic prospect. 3. The allegation that Hamas genuinely wanted to release the Israeli civilian hostages it captured on October 7 but was prevented from doing so by Israel or then-US Secretary of State Blinken is a false claim the group has repeatedly used to deflect responsibility. Hamas did not offer their unconditional release. As described in the Haaretz report, it wanted any release to occur through an intermediary who could shape the framework for subsequent hostage release negotiations, which by definition was conditional and difficult to reconcile with the chaotic aftermath of the attack. Hamas also adopted a broad definition of who qualified as a non-civilian hostage, often treating virtually any Israeli between 18 and 60, including women, as a soldier. If it had truly wanted to free Israeli civilians immediately, practical options existed. It could have coordinated with Egyptian intelligence and transferred civilian hostages to the Rafah border crossing and handed them over for safe return to Israel. Instead, Hamas quickly escalated its demands, murdered multiple civilian hostages, and held others for hundreds of days. The claim that it had no realistic way to release civilians shortly after their capture defies logic and raises a more basic question: if they were not intended as bargaining chips, why were they taken at all? 4. Approximately two months ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu halted progress on an Emirati-financed, Dahlan-influenced community planned for western Rafah in southern Gaza (beyond the Yellow Line), despite months of work by the Board of Peace and approval from Israeli military and intelligence officials. His last-minute reversal generated frustration among the Board of Peace, the UAE, and Dahlan. Given this context, the timing of the release of the Haaretz piece and references to Dahlan’s man "Coal Eyes" may reflect an effort by Dahlan and a coalition of Arab and Western actors to weaken Netanyahu ahead of a pivotal election that could shape both Israel's future and the broader trajectory of the Middle East. 5. This piece has been extraordinarily damaging, amplified across much of the “pro-Palestine” movement, the pro-Hamas camp, and circles eager to minimize Hamas's responsibility for the October 7 massacre that precipitated the worst catastrophe in modern Palestinian history. Many Israeli leftists, anti-Netanyahu journalists, and activists are so focused on defeating Netanyahu politically that they often portray him as the central culprit behind October 7, at times relegating Hamas, the actual perpetrator of the attack, to a secondary role. The article has fueled conspiracy theories that Netanyahu knowingly allowed October 7 to happen to justify a campaign of "genocide" in Gaza. More broadly, the debate surrounding the piece has further eroded any sense of Palestinian agency, responsibility, or accountability, with some even advancing the claim that Hamas effectively tried to warn Netanyahu about the attack but was ignored, forcing it to launch the attack – almost reluctantly. 6. The idea that Hamas would warn Netanyahu and sacrifice the element of surprise is extremely implausible. Before October 7, Hamas's capabilities remained fundamentally asymmetric, making the element of surprise essential to offset Israel's overwhelming military advantages. It is difficult to believe that Sinwar would have deliberately alerted Israel to the possibility of an operation of October 7's scale just weeks before launching it, particularly given reports that Hamas started planning it in 2022. 7. While ultimately a loathsome and criminal figure, Netanyahu was often defined more by caution than by hawkishness. Before October 7, many Israelis criticized him as indecisive and reluctant to take bold military action. He was grappling with unprecedented domestic unrest over his judicial “overhaul,” pursuing Saudi-Israeli normalization, trying to preserve the Abraham Accords, and struggling to hold together a fragile coalition that included far-right figures like Ben Gvir and Smotrich. Above all, he wanted to keep Gaza quiet while violence was rising in the West Bank and Iran's nuclear program remained a growing concern. That desire for calm at almost any cost likely contributed to the catastrophic negligence that preceded October 7, ignoring multiple warning signals, rather than a deliberate effort to let an attack happen and trigger a war to be used as a political pretext. His resistance to a full investigation of October 7 failures is more plausibly explained by a desire to avoid scrutiny of that negligence, potentially even criminal negligence, than by evidence of a broader conspiracy. Consider the timing of this piece; consider who’s enthusiastically attempting to absolve Hamas of its responsibility; consider the illogical framing of some of the points being raised; and consider the possibility that while some nuggets of truth may exist in this exposé, there are forces at play very interested in manipulating perceptions of the pre-October 7 reality in which Hamas was deeply unpopular, hated, without options, and run by two psychopaths (Sinwar & Deif) who gambled away the lives and future of two million Palestinians.

Hamas’s fascist militias attacked civilians in Khan Younis today, shooting, wounding, and kidnapping several, then retreated straight into the Nasser Hospital Medical Complex, where they’ve built torture rooms and interrogation chambers in full view of UN agencies and international NGOs. And still, the “pro‑Palestine” industrial complex won’t say a word. Not Hasan Piker, not the DSA, not SJP or AMP, not the activist mobs, influencers, journalists, Hollywood names, singers, members of Congress, or Senate candidates. None of them will touch the fact that Palestinians are being brutalized by Palestinian oppressors like Islamist terrorists such as Hamas, throughout Gaza and especially inside Gaza’s hospitals - because for them, Palestinian lives only seem to matter when Jewish Israelis are involved. Tell the truth - is that not the case? Am I wrong?