A view of the Gulf of Aqaba and the coastline of Eilat city in Israel visible across the water, is seen from Aqaba, Aqaba Governorate, Jordan [Getty]
Yemen has rejected Israeli claims linking the Houthis to a purported threat against the southern Israeli city of Eilat, dismissing suggestions that the group is using civilian flights into Jordan as part of a wider network targeting Israel.
A Yemeni official source told The New Arab that the Houthis have no control over the flights in question, contradicting reports in Israeli media that sought to link aircraft operating between Yemen and Jordan to security concerns surrounding Eilat.
The source stressed that Yemenia Airways has not operated commercial flights between Sanaa and Amman since Israeli airstrikes targeted Sanaa airport last year, effectively shutting down the route.
The official added that Yemenia was managed by the internationally recognised government based in Aden and not by the Houthi authorities in Sanaa, who have no role in the airline’s management or operations.
According to the same source, the only flights currently operating between Sanaa and Amman are humanitarian missions organised by the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, limited to transporting aid and relief delegations.
The Yemeni response came after a series of reports in Israeli media citing warnings from Shin Bet chief David Zini about a potential future attack on Eilat involving multiple regional actors, including the Houthis.
According to several security sources who spoke to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Zini warned in closed-door discussions that “the next October 7 will be in Eilat”, Israel’s southernmost city, reportedly instructing officials to prioritise preparations for a possible attack on the Red Sea port.
Israeli military radio has also amplified the claims, reporting that authorities were monitoring the arrival of what it described as Houthi-linked aircraft in Jordan and suggesting the flights could form part of a broader threat network reaching Eilat.
However, Israeli authorities have publicly acknowledged that there is no concrete evidence of an imminent attack on the city.
Eilat’s mayor has also sought to calm fears, stating that there is no indication of any immediate threat.
According to the Israeli reports, Zini has raised scenarios involving a ground incursion into the city from neighbouring Jordan, as well as possible infiltration through Israel’s maritime border in the Red Sea.
The warnings come amid broader criticism of Zini, whose tenure as Shin Bet chief has generated controversy since he took over the agency in October 2025.
During a recent visit to Eilat, he reportedly described the movement of Palestinian citizens of Israel to the city as a “worrying” development and framed demographic changes as a security issue.
His appointment itself was challenged before Israel’s High Court by three former Shin Bet directors, who argued that he was unfit for the role, although the petitions were ultimately dismissed.
The Eilat scenario is also being floated after months of Houthi missile and drone launches towards Israel in support of Gaza and during the US-Israel war on Iran.
While Israeli officials continue to discuss worst-case scenarios involving the Houthis, they have not publicly presented evidence linking the group to operational activity in Jordan or preparations for a cross-border assault on Eilat.
Despite that, Israel’s security establishment has increased military activity around the city.
Earlier this week, the Israeli army announced exercises covering both the Gulf of Eilat and the occupied Golan Heights, warning residents and tourists of increased military movement, including naval vessels and security forces.
The announcement came weeks after Israeli forces reported spotting a jet ski rider who allegedly crossed into Israeli waters in Eilat Bay before returning towards Jordan after being detected.
For Yemeni officials, however, the latest claims appear to be another attempt to portray routine humanitarian activity and civilian air travel as security threats, despite the absence of publicly available evidence supporting the allegations.
