The strained relationship between the ruling party and Israeli media has reached a significant legal turning point following a report by journalist Shlomi Eldar in Haaretz. The investigation alleged that a security warning was passed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by the President of the United Arab Emirates shortly before the October 7 massacre. The publication triggered a sharp response from the Prime Minister's Office, which denied the existence of the conversation, stated that official checks prove it did not occur, and threatened a libel lawsuit against the newspaper. Meanwhile, officials in the UAE indicated they do not comment on media reports on the subject.
The dramatic development occurred on September 9, 2026, when the Likud party issued an official statement accusing those involved in the affair of a broad conspiracy. Likud claims this constitutes 'blatant foreign interference in Israeli elections' and alleged that a senior Palestinian official residing in the UAE is behind the report. In a pre-litigation demand letter sent on behalf of Netanyahu, the immediate removal of the article was requested. In a statement published on social media, the Prime Minister claimed that the journalist received funding from a left-wing organization for the publication and that it should be viewed as part of a large-scale political maneuver.
The Likud demand goes beyond a civil libel suit, including a sweeping request to launch a criminal investigation against a range of individuals and entities: journalist Shlomi Eldar, editor Ruth Yuval, the newspaper itself, as well as Democrats party chairman Yair Golan and his party. Likud argues that this involves interference with election proceedings and the dissemination of false information ('fake news') aimed at influencing Israel's political system. These legal steps, which have not yet been decided by judicial authorities, indicate the party's willingness to use legal and criminal tools to address media reports it defines as false. As this process develops, it is expected to raise complex questions regarding the boundaries of freedom of the press, the legal liability of media outlets in publishing political investigations, and the extent of the authority of law enforcement agencies to open criminal investigations for journalistic publications defined as election interference. As of now, the confrontation remains at the level of mutual allegations, with each side fortifying its position while awaiting the exhaustion of legal proceedings that have begun or have been threatened.