Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance at the United Nations last week has been greeted with both applause and derision. For some, it was a moment of defiance – an Israeli leader standing tall against a hostile world and unflinching in the face of walkouts by dozens of delegates. For others, it was a performance that hardened Israel’s growing isolation and failed to offer a vision that could win allies or relieve Israel of its burdens.
The Jerusalem Post has itself been accused of moving against the prime minister by reporting these criticisms. Yet, the reality is that Netanyahu’s speech embodied both the strengths and weaknesses that have marked his leadership since October 7. To cover one without the other is to miss the full picture.
The case for applause
There is no denying that Netanyahu projected resolve. He spoke as a wartime leader, focused on Hamas, Iran, and those who would celebrate Israel’s destruction. His insistence that Israel “finish the job” in Gaza was not meant to charm foreign diplomats but to remind the world that Israel fights for its survival.
Domestically, the message resonates. Many Israelis, weary of international lectures, see in Netanyahu the embodiment of steadfastness. His ability to stand at the UN, undeterred by empty chairs and disdainful glares, demonstrates the kind of stubborn strength Israelis often prize. In a time of uncertainty, that resolve matters.
The case for concern
Yet, critics are not entirely wrong. Israel’s circle of support is narrowing. When close allies in Europe, Canada, and Australia formally recognize a Palestinian state, the prime minister’s rhetoric may reinforce perceptions of Israel as dismissive and unyielding. His speech offered little in the way of a political horizon, even as questions mount about the war’s human toll, the fate of the hostages, and Israel’s diplomatic future.
Moreover, within Israel, different sectors of society continue to clamor for different priorities: the return of hostages, relief for displaced families, accountability in government, or simply an end to seemingly endless conflict. By focusing solely on external threats, Netanyahu risks alienating those who want to hear how the government intends to heal the fractures within Israeli society itself.
The balance sheet
So was Netanyahu’s UN speech a success or a failure? The truth lies in between. For Israelis who demand strength, it was a reassurance. For Israel’s allies abroad, it was a troubling reminder that Jerusalem may be prepared to “go it alone” even at the cost of deeper isolation. For the prime minister himself, it was classic Netanyahu: unbowed, uncompromising, and uninterested in currying favor with those who would walk away.
However, this duality points to the central challenge of his leadership. Israel cannot afford weakness, yet neither can it thrive in isolation. The prime minister is correct that victory over Hamas is essential. But victory in the broader sense – political, diplomatic, and moral – requires allies, credibility, and a plan for the day after.
Israel’s media does no one a service by pretending the prime minister’s appearance was either flawless or catastrophic. It was both – and neither. Like much of Netanyahu’s long career, it reflected the paradox of Israel itself: a nation of remarkable strength, struggling to navigate a world that is often hostile, sometimes supportive, and always watching.
The writer is an attorney and father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror and is president of the Religious Zionists of America-Mizrachi.