the news now

Sara Netanyahu Suggests Yair Golan Had Prior Knowledge of October 7 Attacks

3 sources · Israel

Who reported this

  • Haaretz Israel · Left · Schocken family and M. DuMont Schauberg
  • The Times of Israel Israel · Centre · Seth Klarman (majority backer)
  • The Jerusalem Post Israel · Centre-right · Mirkaei Tikshoret (Eli Azur)

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

Every source for this story reports from Israel.

Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, suggested in a Monday evening interview on Channel 14 that Democrats party chairman Yair Golan may have had prior knowledge of the October 7 attacks. Netanyahu questioned why a high ranking military officer would be dressed and prepared to fight at such an early hour when others, including the prime minister, were not yet aware of the events. When asked directly about theories of betrayal from within, she declined to rule it out, stating she did not know and calling for a real investigative commission.

The Democrats party condemned the remarks as slanderous and false, stating that spreading such conspiracy theories against Golan is crossing a red line bordering on madness. Democrats MK Gilad Kariv suggested that the party may pursue a defamation lawsuit against Sara Netanyahu, noting that she lacks legal immunity. Benny Gantz, chairman of the Blue and White party, also defended Golan as a brave warrior and argued that attempts to link him to treason harm the fighting spirit of the people.

Outlets with different political leanings framed the event differently. Center and center right sources described the comments as the pushing or hinting of a conspiracy theory. The left leaning source framed the comments as the amplification of conspiracies and a refusal to rule out betrayal from within.

How each side framed it

Left
Framed the event as the amplification of conspiracies and a refusal to rule out internal betrayal.
Centre
Framed the event as the promotion of a conspiracy theory.
Centre-right
Framed the event as hinting at a conspiracy and echoing allegations of betrayal.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.