🌍 This article is also available in RU
- September 1, 2026
- 2:05 pm
- Israel
Sara Netanyahu raised the question of why Yair Golan was “so quickly ready to act” on the morning of October 7. I checked the chronology of his trip to the south, the preserved correspondence with the rescued, the history of 244 thousand publications, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s own words about the “betrayal” version.
On the evening of August 31, 2026, Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, gave an interview to Channel 14 and spoke about Yair Golan — a reserve major general, former deputy chief of staff of the IDF, and current leader of the “Democrats” party. She “noted” that on the morning of October 7, 2023, Golan was very early “dressed and ready,” while, according to her, others, including the prime minister, “did not yet know what was happening.”
There was no direct accusation that Golan knew in advance about the Hamas attack. When asked about the “betrayal from within” version, Sara Netanyahu replied that she did not want to talk about it and did not know. But the very formula of “Golan’s suspiciously early readiness” has been part of the conspiracy campaign around October 7 for several years.
On the morning of September 1, Golan announced on the army radio station “Galei Tzahal” that he intended to file a defamation lawsuit against Sara Netanyahu.
I, Alexander Khmelnitsky, for NANews — News of Israel compared the current scandal with earlier testimonies about Golan’s actions on October 7. Here, the sequence of events is more important than the party position.
If you search today for “Sara Netanyahu Yair Golan,” “did Yair Golan know in advance about October 7,” “betrayal of October 7,” or “Yair Golan’s lawsuit,” it’s easy to mix facts and political accusations. It is established: Golan went south after the attack began and participated in rescuing people. No public evidence has been presented that he knew about the impending attack in advance.
What is known about Golan’s departure time
In the historical archive of testimonies “Edut 710,” Golan’s account is preserved: he began receiving the first reports of what was happening around 6:30 a.m. After that, he put on his uniform and left for the south in his own car around 8:00.
The Hamas attack began around 6:29. So, it was not a departure before the attack, but about an hour and a half after it began.
Initially, Golan was at the IDF Home Front Command headquarters — more familiar to Israelis as Pikud Ha-Oref — in Ramla, then at the Urim base. After that, he was engaged in searching for people hiding after the attack on the Nova festival. Relatives sent coordinates, which he tried to reach.
Later, Golan spoke of three trips to the Nova area and six people rescued. His own account should not close the question by itself. Therefore, I separately checked whether there are independent traces of these trips. They exist.
Correspondence from October 7 has been preserved
In the interactive archive of the Israeli public broadcaster KAN “7.10.360”, there is a story of the rescue of journalist Nir Gontage’s son.
At 15:37, Gontage informed Golan that people were hiding in the garden. At 15:39, Golan requested a contact for communication. Further in the correspondence, the location was clarified. At 16:21, Golan reported that he would connect with them in about a minute. At 17:15, Gontage was already thanking him.
This does not restore every minute of Golan’s day. But it is an independent time trace of a specific rescue operation, and the messages were created directly on October 7, 2023, not after three years of political disputes.
There are also testimonies from the families of the rescued, which appeared immediately after the attack. Therefore, the very fact of the rescue trips is based not only on Golan’s later stories about himself.
Here, the conspiracy construction begins to clash with the chronology. If the argument is that a person was “suspiciously early ready,” it is important first to establish when he even learned about the attack and when he left. Available evidence points to events already after the attack began.
Where did the 244 thousand tweets come from
In January 2026, FakeReporter, an Israeli organization researching disinformation campaigns, presented material titled “244 Thousand Tweets: The Campaign Against Yair Golan Revealed.”
This figure requires precision. It’s not about 244 thousand messages only about Golan’s trips to Nova. FakeReporter described a broader array of publications in which different versions were repeated: “as if Golan knew about the attack in advance, was connected with a ‘spy,’ collaborated with ‘Nukhba,’ or participated in ‘state betrayal.'”
“Nukhba” — Hamas assault units, whose militants participated in the invasion on October 7.
Therefore, Sara Netanyahu’s words caused such a reaction not by themselves. The question of why Golan was “dressed and ready” earlier than others fell into an already existing and widely disseminated narrative.
Why the reaction went beyond the left camp
Golan today leads the “Democrats” — a left-wing party formed after the merger of “Avoda” and MERETZ. Therefore, the defense from his own supporters is easily explained by party struggle. A much more indicative reaction is another.
Former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot called the version of betrayal a conspiracy theory without factual basis and reminded that Golan went on his own to save people on October 7.
Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, a politician from another camp, stated that Golan got into a car with a weapon on the morning of October 7 and “went straight into hell,” risking his life for others.
Actor and publicist Hanoch Daum separately emphasized that he never voted for Golan and seriously disagreed with him in views, but considers it necessary to thank him for going to save Israelis on the morning of October 7.
That is why the scandal turned out to be broader than another quarrel between the government and the opposition. Another question arises: can the actions of a person who went to a mass murder area to save people be retrospectively turned into a basis for suspicion precisely because he arrived there quickly?
Netanyahu himself previously rejected “betrayal”
There is another detail without which the current story seems incomplete.
On February 5, 2026, Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at a closed meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. MP Chili Tropper asked him about the version of internal betrayal. The prime minister’s response, later published by several Israeli media, was unequivocal: there was an intelligence failure, but “there was no betrayal”.
This does not mean that one phrase from the prime minister can close the investigation into the causes of the disaster. But for the current dispute, the fact is important: Sara Netanyahu brought back into public discussion a motive that her husband himself rejected several months earlier.
At the same time, no public evidence has been presented that Golan knew about the impending attack in advance.
What the lawsuit might change
At the time of preparing the article, Golan announced his intention to sue, but I found no confirmation of the lawsuit’s registration. Therefore, writing that “Yair Golan has already sued Sara Netanyahu” would be incorrect for now.
If the lawsuit does appear, the dispute will move from television and social networks to where precise words and context will have to be analyzed. Golan has a chronology: the attack began around 6:29, he received the first messages after it started, left around 8:00, and individual rescue actions are independently confirmed.
Sara Netanyahu has another significant circumstance: she did not make a direct statement that Golan “participated in a conspiracy” or “knew about the attack in advance.” If the case goes to court, the line between a hint and a direct accusation may become one of the central issues.
I would not reduce this story to an unfortunate phrase on television. After October 7, Israel is still trying to answer a much heavier question: why did state and security mechanisms not stop the disaster, and who is responsible for it.
The “betrayal from within” theory offers a simple and emotionally strong answer to an extremely complex failure. But a simple answer becomes an established fact only when evidence appears.
In the case of Yair Golan, the available chronology today shows otherwise: he learned about the attack after it began, then went south and saved people. And Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom Sara Netanyahu now compares his actions, himself previously told MPs: “there was no betrayal”.
🌍 This article is also available in RU