On September 15, the Prime Minister’s Office sent out a notice to reporters informing them that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be traveling to New York on Tuesday, September 24, to address the annual UN General Assembly. According to the notification, he would leave New York and fly back to Israel on Saturday night, after Shabbat.
And then on September 16, the security cabinet updated the war aims to include returning the residents of the North securely to their homes; then pagers blew up in Lebanon; then walkie-talkies blew up as well; then Israel killed Hezbollah’s No. 3, and the entire leadership of the Radwan force; then Hezbollah sent a missile barrage on the North, including Haifa and its suburbs; and then Israel bombed extensively in southern Lebanon and Hezbollah’s stronghold in the Bekaa Valley.
In other words, when Netanyahu’s office sent out its initial notice, Israel was primarily focused on Hamas, the hostages, and Gaza.
Two days later, the focus shifted, and the country is on the cusp of the Third Lebanon War, in addition to still fighting Hamas in Gaza and trying to free the hostages.
In the nine days since Netanyahu formally said he would be going to the UN General Assembly, the Middle East ground has shifted dramatically.
As a result, Netanyahu’s schedule has changed, with him now expected to leave Israel late Wednesday night, arriving in New York on Thursday morning for his Friday morning speech at the UN plenary. There reportedly was a discussion about canceling the trip altogether.
In this situation – with the country on the verge of a major military conflagration with Hezbollah, with the possibility of tremendous implications for the home front – is this the time for Netanyahu to travel to the US to address an empty UN hall?
Netanyahu’s critics will blast him for leaving the country. They will say this is an unnecessary trip, that he and his wife Sara are just looking for a nice Shabbat in a fancy New York hotel, and that a real leader stays with his people at a time when ballistic missiles might be flying in from Lebanon or elsewhere.
The Prime Minister’s supporters will say that this criticism is petty, that these speeches are important for Israel to explain itself to a hostile world, and that the new plane outfitted for him will enable him to be in constant contact with the military if dramatic decisions are needed when he is gone, and that he will be out of the country for just over 72 hours.
Despite the unfolding crisis, there are several compelling reasons why Netanyahu might feel that delivering his speech at the UN is essential. This isn’t just about addressing the international community but also about reaffirming Israel’s position on the global stage in ways that are crucial during such tumultuous times.
Friday, the day of Netanyahu’s address to the UN, will mark the last day of his 16th year as Israel’s Prime Minister, a tenure spread over three terms: 1996-1999, 2009-2021, and from December 2022 until now.
In each of those terms, Netanyahu has relished giving the annual speech at the UN General Assembly. Not all leaders go to the UN event, and on a few occasions – such as 2010 and 2019 – he has taken a pass. But for the most part, he makes it a point to attend this gathering.
Netanyahu and his manner of presenting Israel's case
Why?
Because this is where Netanyahu shines: presenting Israel’s case in English to the world. This is where he showcases, for the Israeli public, if not the international community, his strengths: strutting on the world’s stage, arguing on Israel’s behalf in perfect English, and hobnobbing with world leaders on the sidelines of the event.
This is a venue where he is able to look like a giant, compared to his political foes. As such, this is an opportunity he will forfeit only if absolutely necessary.
Remember the mini-controversy in July over whether he should give an address to Congress in the middle of the war with Hamas?
Netanyahu insisted on going for much the same reason: given the opportunity to address the world from a prominent stage, he is not going to pass it up – even if some congressmen are going to boycott – because it is good for Israel to have its case presented cogently and articulately, and because it is good for him politically to make it.
More national delegations are going to boycott or walk out of his speech at the UN, perhaps demonstratively, than senators or congressmen who did not attend his speech in Congress, but that does not matter.
His words will be broadcast live in Israel, which is his prime target audience, and he will do something with a prop or say something that will draw media attention and ensure that his words are given ample coverage in the world’s media. After all, he has been at this for 17 years – he knows the script.
Netanyahu will certainly – as he did during his speech to Congress – give a spirited and passionate defense of Israel that will resonate strongly with his base and also lead even those not in his base to nod their heads in agreement. He will strongly defend Israel’s actions in Lebanon and Gaza, and decry Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.
This speech will be very different from the one he gave last year. Last year’s speech, which now seems like a light year ago, focused on the real possibility of peace with Saudi Arabia and how the Middle East was on the cusp of transformation.
He came equipped last year with a prop (as usual). It was a map of the Middle East, with the neighboring countries with whom Israel has relations, plus Saudi Arabia, in green. With a red marker, he drew a line marking how a “new corridor of peace” connecting Europe with Asia, was going to run through Israel.
One reads that speech today and rubs one’s eyes in disbelief. “This is an extraordinary change, a monumental change. Another pivot of history,” he said.
That speech was delivered on September 22. Two weeks later, to block any such pivot, Hamas attacked.
Just to give an indication of the degree to which things have changed, among the leaders Netanyahu met on the sidelines of last year’s event, along with US President Joe Biden, was Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
While it is not clear whom he will meet at the UN this year, Netanyahu clearly won’t be meeting Erdogan, who is proving himself on the diplomatic stage as one of Israel’s worst enemies.
Netanyahu is coming to a UN that has not yet passed a resolution condemning Hamas for the October 7 attack but which last week passed a resolution calling for Israel to completely withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem within 12 months and remove all settlements and settlers.
He is coming to a UN that has one organization, UNRWA, criminally complicit in Hamas’s crimes, and another – UNIFIL – that stood helplessly by as Hezbollah, against UN Security Council resolutions, armed itself to the teeth and took over southern Lebanon.
Netanyahu will surely use his presence in the very center of the UN to blast their hypocrisy and complicity. That too, while it might not have much impact internationally, will resonate strongly in Israel.
Netanyahu’s speech will serve another important purpose, similar to his address in Congress: it will offer reassurance and support to American Jews, many of whom feel abandoned by their allies and isolated in defending Israel’s right to exist and wage a defensive war.
His words will challenge accusations like genocide and apartheid, forcing the media and international community to engage with his arguments. These speeches boost morale, providing a sense of pride and solidarity. Hearing the Prime Minister stand strong on the world stage may encourage others to do the same – to speak up for Israel with confidence and conviction.
However, while there are clear benefits to Netanyahu’s appearance, there are also significant reasons to reconsider this trip. In a time of such national urgency, the decision to leave the country for any reason comes with its own set of risks and criticisms.
One risk is that by Friday, the country may be in a full-blown war with Hezbollah. Weighty and dramatic decisions will need to be made, and the Prime Minister will need to be in situ to make them.
Also, at such a harrowing time, the place of a leader is with his people to bolster and encourage them, not giving speeches – as well-crafted as they may be – to foreign audiences. Others can present Israel’s case at the UN – some better, some worse. There is no one else, however, who can make the life-and-death decisions that may indeed erupt at that time.
In the end, Netanyahu’s decision to attend the UN General Assembly comes down to weighing the symbolic and strategic value of addressing the world against the immediate needs of a nation on the brink of a much wider war. As Israel faces growing threats from multiple fronts, his choice will inevitably be scrutinized – not just for what he says on the global stage but for where he chooses to be when his country may need him most.