Abu Dhabi declines to confirm or deny the call, and declines to rescue the Prime Minister’s Office
The UAE Foreign Ministry answered a question it was not asked, saying it does not comment on leaders' conversations while affirming that intelligence channels with Israel remain open. That is the second story of the day.
The Emirati statement, issued Tuesday evening, is precise in its evasions. The ministry “emphasizes that the UAE government does not respond to media stories or speculation regarding conversations between government leaders,” and adds that “UAE and Israeli government entities have maintained open and direct lines of communication since the inception of the relationship more than five years ago,” with relevant intelligence shared when necessary. Multiple outlets noted that Abu Dhabi neither confirmed nor denied the conversation. The Times of Israel’s liveblog headline furniture put the asymmetry plainly: “UAE doesn’t deny MBZ warned Netanyahu ahead of Oct. 7; he says reports are false.” The Israeli denial is categorical; the Emirati response is a policy statement about not making such statements.
Two anonymous accounts fill the gap, and both should be read as interested. CNN carries a claim from “an Israeli source familiar with the matter” that the Prime Minister’s Office pressed Abu Dhabi to issue an outright denial, and that the UAE agreed only to language about intelligence sharing — single-sourced, and sourced to the party embarrassed by the outcome. The Jerusalem Post reports sources in Abu Dhabi signalling that the UAE will not be drawn into an Israeli election fight and will not serve as the Israeli government’s “public relations office” — also unnamed, and also self-flattering to the side that leaked it. Neither can be treated as established. What is on the record is a ministry statement that reaffirms the channel while refusing to characterise what passed through it.
Assessment: Read from the Gulf, the Emirati calculation is legible without any leak. Confirming the call would make Abu Dhabi a witness in an Israeli criminal-political proceeding and a participant in an election; denying it would spend Emirati credibility to protect a specific Israeari politician. Saying only that the channel exists preserves both the relationship and the option of remembering more later. Distrust the two anonymous versions equally: each dramatises the same underlying non-answer into a win for its own side. The durable point is that four years into normalisation, Abu Dhabi now treats the Israeli premiership as a variable rather than a partner.