The Speech of Isolation and False Heroism

Writer: Jamal Zaqout

Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before the United Nations General Assembly was more like a speech marking the end of a phase than one that opens a new phase. Perhaps in the background was the realization that this could be the last time he stands on this platform as Prime Minister of Israel. The Israeli elections scheduled for October 27 are approaching, and his political future has become inseparable from the way he addresses both the world and Israelis at the same time. However, it seems that his speech was directed at his electoral audience within Israel, with no consideration for the international community.

Netanyahu did not come to New York to present a new political vision, nor to propose an exit from the war or a vision for the future of the region. He came primarily to defend his position in Israel and his war policy, and to reshape its image from a state facing increasing international criticism to a state that claims to be the victim facing a hostile world. Therefore, the speech seemed an attempt to flip the question: instead of being about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and the region, the question becomes about what the world is doing to Israel.

The scene of dozens of delegations leaving the hall at the moment he entered was enough for the speech to turn into an image that encapsulates the predicament Netanyahu tried to deny. However, he did not treat it as a sign of increasing political isolation, but rather turned it into another element in the narrative of "heroism." The more others left, the more steadfast he appeared in his narrative; and the more criticism rose, the more he insisted on presenting himself as the "leader" who stands alone, yet does not bend.

Show of strength as an alternative to politics.

When the space for political options narrows, military power and confrontational language become a means to compensate for the absence of a political exit. The goal was not to convince the world that there is a plan to end the conflict, but rather to show that he is still capable of challenging the world and rejecting its terms, even resolving the conflict by the sword.

At the same time, the speech was clearly directed at the Israelis. Netanyahu spoke of unity, resilience, and courage, about Israel standing against its enemies, evoking the image of a leader who protects his people and knows how to confront the world. This led some analysts to describe it as an electoral speech rather than a diplomatic one.

Netanyahu was not trying to convince the world that Israel has changed; rather, he was trying to convince Israelis that Israel does not need to change. From the position of the accused to that of the victim, from isolation to heroism, and from accountability to persecution, the speech attempted to rearrange the entire scene.

However, the image of a united Israel that he presented does not easily align with its internal reality. The Israeli division did not begin on October 7; there was a deep crisis regarding the nature of the state, democracy, judiciary, religion, society, and identity that preceded the war, and it has worsened in recent years around Netanyahu and his allies' project. Therefore, presenting himself as the leader who unites Israelis against the world ignores the fact that his policies have been part of the internal conflict that has divided Israeli society.

Here, the false heroism revealed by the speech emerges, not in the sense that it is merely a fabricated personal image, but in a deeper political sense: an attempt to turn isolation into a proof of strength, the absence of a political solution into evidence of resilience, and the world's rejection of Israeli policies into proof of their validity.

What should the Palestinians draw from this?

The more dangerous aspect is that the discourse of power cannot eliminate the pressing question: where does this path lead?

Denying the existence of Palestinians, renouncing their national rights, and attempting to turn the realities imposed by military force into permanent political and legal facts do not erase the Palestinian people or their right to self-determination. It may be easy to impose new realities by force, but transforming them into permanent legitimacy requires something else that power alone does not provide.

Perhaps this is the lesson that Palestinians should draw from this historical turning point: not to enter into a race with the Israeli narrative about who possesses greater power, but to transform their existence and national rights and their survival into a political and legal reality more solid than any facts imposed by war. This requires moving away from a reactive position, investing in the growing shift in global public opinion, and building a comprehensive national discourse based on the right to self-determination, freedom, and equality, and unified national mechanisms whose core priorities are to enhance the resilience of people and their ability to remain in their homeland, while addressing both Israelis and the world with the logic of ending the conflict, not with the logic of denying the other.

Perhaps the deeper paradox is that the policies that Netanyahu insists on presenting as a defense of Israel and of Jews worldwide have begun to raise, within sectors of the Jewish diaspora, a counter question: can these very policies become a burden on the relationship between Jews and their communities and on the moral meaning of their identity? This is connected to the erosion of international support for Israel, internal Israeli polarization, and the growing relationships of Netanyahu's government with right-wing populist and extremist European parties with an anti-Semitic legacy, not just against Muslims. This does not mean that Jews in Europe or the United States adopt a single stance, but the division has become more apparent, especially among liberals, secularists, and youth, where government policies raise the question of whether linking Judaism with occupation, war, and military power undermines, rather than protects, the moral and humanitarian values they see as part of their identity. Hence, what Netanyahu presents as a defense of Israel and of Jews worldwide may become, in the eyes of his critics among the Jews themselves, a burden on Israel and its relationship with Jews abroad.

Between Netanyahu's End and Israel's New Image

The absence of a meeting between Netanyahu and Trump during this visit may have been more than just a protocol detail. The meeting was not on the American president's agenda at a time when Netanyahu is fighting an electoral battle and facing increasing international isolation. It may be an exaggeration to turn this alone into a judgment on his political future, but the question remains valid: Has this absence reinforced within him the feeling that Netanyahu's era is nearing its end, and that Israel itself is paying the price for the confusion between the state and his government and policies?

Netanyahu no longer distinguishes, in his speech and political practice, between the Israel he represents and himself as its representative. At this moment, the new Israel revealed by war and international isolation appears more exposed to the world; a state trying to protect its old image by force, while the gap widens between this image and what the world sees in its policies, from occupation and settlement to genocide, ethnic cleansing, and denial of Palestinian rights. Building 'iron walls' may not be enough to hide this image forever.

If this is indeed Netanyahu's last speech before the General Assembly as Prime Minister, he wanted to leave the podium with the image he chose for himself: a leader standing alone but unbowed, facing the world while insisting that his people are united behind him.

However, his speech revealed another image: a leader trying to turn isolation into heroism, power into a substitute for politics, and the denial of the Palestinian people's rights into a reality imposed by brute force. Perhaps this is the clearest paradox, as he wanted to present himself as the leader whom the world cannot isolate, yet he inadvertently contributed to reinforcing Israel's isolation.