Benjamin Netanyahu’s Sept. 24 U.N. General Assembly speech defended Israel’s conduct in Gaza and attacked its critics. Reports published in the days that followed renewed scrutiny of warnings allegedly given before Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack; coverage of the speech reports no explanation of the warning accounts or commitment to an inquiry.
The sequence matters: the speech preceded the latest reports, so it was not a response to those revelations. But its focus on defending Israel abroad did not address the wider accountability questions now facing the government: what Israeli officials knew before the attack, and what legal responsibility, if any, attaches to the military campaign in Gaza.
Netanyahu’s Gaza defense is not a court ruling
Netanyahu rejected the genocide allegation and presented Israel as facing attacks from its enemies and international critics. “Israel didn't commit genocide. Israel prevented genocide,” he said, according to TIME.
That statement is the prime minister’s position, not a judicial finding. South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice concerns alleged violations of the Genocide Convention. The case remained pending in TIME’s report, which noted that the court’s provisional measures were not a final ruling on whether genocide occurred.
The human cost makes clear why the distinction matters. CBS News reported that a U.N. report cited Gaza Health Ministry data putting the number of Palestinians killed since Israel began its military campaign at more than 73,000. TIME reported more than 1,400 Palestinians killed since the October 2025 ceasefire, citing the ministry; TIME said those figures could not be independently verified and did not distinguish civilians from combatants.
Those reported totals describe the scale of loss, but they do not settle the legal allegation. Netanyahu’s rejection of it does not resolve the pending case, either.
The warning accounts describe different channels
The reports do not establish one agreed account of what Israeli officials were told. Euronews reported that The New York Times said United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed warned Netanyahu before the attack and that Netanyahu did not pass the warning to security officials. Euronews said the Times account corroborated earlier reporting by Haaretz. These are reported allegations, not established findings.
A separate report by The Atlantic said Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel visited Israel on Sept. 26, 2023, and warned of a possible major Hamas attack. The report, available in an archive, said the warning lacked specific detail and that it could not establish whether Netanyahu received it.
Former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant described another channel: an alleged message from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar sent through Shin Bet channels weeks before the attack. Gallant said he had not been told about the alleged foreign warnings while in office. He said that, if a prime minister received such a warning, it would indicate a fundamental failure in assessing the situation, according to Euronews.
Netanyahu’s office denied the UAE and Egyptian accounts. On the Egyptian report, it said Netanyahu had neither met nor spoken with Kamel in the months before Oct. 7 and that no Israeli intelligence official had conveyed such a warning to him, according to The Times of Israel. The available reporting does not establish a specific response from the office to Gallant’s separate account.
Free newsletter
Get the morning briefing
Start each day with the stories that matter and why — a short, free email from our newsroom.
An inquiry would test the competing accounts
Israeli opposition leaders have called for an investigation into the warnings and whether Netanyahu knew about them, Euronews reported. The outlet also said Netanyahu had previously rejected calls for an official government inquiry into Oct. 7. Israel’s national election is scheduled for Oct. 27, placing scrutiny of the government’s decisions in the political campaign.
A credible inquiry could determine what information reached which officials, when it arrived and how they responded. The reports currently leave basic questions open: what each warning said, who received it and what records exist. The separate denials and allegations cannot, on their own, resolve those questions.
For Israelis seeking answers about the Oct. 7 attack and Palestinians affected by Israel’s campaign in Gaza, accountability starts with establishing what happened. The government has not announced an inquiry in the coverage reviewed; whether it will authorize one, and what authority it would have, remains unresolved.