Tag: Netanyahu

Israel’s Eighth Front – The War For Truth

On By marvinskLeave a comment

Shalom all,

Two days ago, 24 September 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly. The full text of his speech was reported by Jerusalem News Syndicate, among others.

The speech is best understood as three speeches delivered simultaneously: (1) a defense of Israel’s military conduct and national legitimacy; (2) an indictment of Iran, Hamas, Qatar, Turkey and what Netanyahu portrayed as Western double standards; and (3) a deliberately national, Jewish and civilizational message aimed at an Israeli and Jewish audience as much as at the UN.

1. The central message of the speech: Netanyahu presented the current conflict not simply as the Gaza war, but as a much broader struggle involving Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other regional actors, antisemitism, terrorism and what he called the battle over information and truth. The transcript of the speech shows several recurring themes: Israel’s right and obligation to defend itself; the October 7th attack as the starting point for the present war; Iran as a strategic and potentially existential threat; the IDF as an army whose conduct Netanyahu defended as exceptionally moral; rejection of allegations that Israel is committing genocide; criticism of Qatar for its relationship with Hamas and its influence through media and educational institutions; criticism of Turkey and President Erdoğan; criticism of European governments and Western political leaders; criticism of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani; praise for U.S. President Donald Trump; and an appeal to Jewish historical continuity and Israel’s connection to the biblical land.

One particularly significant feature is that Netanyahu did not present himself as seeking the UN’s approval. His rhetorical posture was essentially: Israel will defend itself whether the international community approves or not. That explains both the enthusiastic reaction among his supporters and the exceptionally hostile reaction among his opponents. It took guts to stand up and look the world in the face and say, “We will do what we need to do, whether you approve of it or not.”

2. The walkout – a major visual success and a major diplomatic liability: The most powerful image generated by the speech was actually produced before Netanyahu began to speak. Numerous delegations left the chamber as he approached the podium. Reporting differs somewhat regarding the precise number and composition of the departing delegations, but the walkout was unquestionably substantial. One media outlet described the event as a large diplomatic walkout, while other reports put the number of participating delegations considerably higher. Supporters interpreted the scene as demonstrating the UN’s hostility toward Israel. Critics interpreted precisely the same scene as evidence of Israel’s international isolation. That distinction is important.

Politically, the walkout accomplished two different things simultaneously:
For Netanyahu’s domestic audience, it provided a dramatic illustration of his argument that Israel is confronting an international system that has become hostile to it. His response to those leaving reinforced that narrative, as did his words: “Before I begin, just a quick announcement: If there are any other moral cowards who haven’t yet left this hall – please do so now. Thank you very much.” This is one of those statements that do not require a lot of explanation.

For Israel’s diplomatic position:
It also created a very powerful image of Israel standing virtually alone while large numbers of representatives departed, evidencing increasingly severe international criticism of Israel over Gaza. Without doubt, the speech was delivered amid growing international isolation. But Netanyahu used the occasion to attack European governments, Qatar, Turkey and Mamdani. So the walkout cannot objectively be classified as either simply a “victory” or simply a “defeat.” Its political meaning depended heavily upon the audience.

3. What Netanyahu did particularly effectively: The Times of Israel referred to Netanyahu’s speech as “fiery”. This description can easily be understood when recognizing that he seized control of the narrative. Netanyahu refused to spend the entire speech answering accusations against Israel. Instead, he attempted to reverse the prosecutorial relationship: Israel is not the defendant; the organizations and governments attacking Israel should themselves be questioned. This was one of the speech’s clearest strategic characteristics.

Rather than allowing the discussion to remain exclusively about Gaza, he moved the discussion toward: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Qatar; Turkey; antisemitism, European policy, Western double standards and the security of Israel and the wider West.

Reuters described the address as a forceful defense of Israel’s regional military actions. That is important because agenda-setting is itself a diplomatic objective. Even an adversarial audience can be forced to discuss the subjects introduced by the speaker.

4. The “war for truth” was arguably the speech’s most important conceptual contribution: Netanyahu’s discussion of an information/influence battlefield deserves particular attention. Essentially, he argued that Israel is fighting simultaneously on: the physical battlefield; the diplomatic battlefield; the legal battlefield, and the information battlefield. Military power alone cannot determine the ultimate outcome, because Israel is also engaged in a struggle over how the conflict is interpreted. But, as the Prime Minister stated in his remarks to New York’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani: “You can’t silence the truth.”

5. Qatar and Turkey: a significant part of the speech: Rather than presenting a conventional diplomatic program, Netanyahu devoted considerable attention to Qatar and Turkey. He emphasized that the modern conflict is not fought solely with tanks, aircraft, missiles and soldiers. It is also fought through image, social media, financial support, journalism, universities, international organizations, diplomatic networks, political narratives, legal proceedings and, significantly, public opinion. This is a strategically important expansion of the definition of the battlefield.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Netanyahu specifically accused Qatar of supporting influence operations and criticized Turkey and Erdoğan over their relationship with Hamas and their rhetoric concerning Israel.

But there was an interesting Israeli criticism of Netanyahu here. Former prime minister Naftali Bennett argued that Netanyahu did not go far enough against Qatar, because he stopped short of formally designating Qatar an enemy despite accusing it of supporting Hamas and disseminating anti-Israel messaging. That criticism is revealing. It demonstrates that Netanyahu’s speech was not necessarily viewed as sufficiently aggressive even by some Israeli critics of his government.

6. The IDF argument: Netanyahu made the moral conduct of the IDF one of the speech’s central defenses. His argument was essentially: Israel is fighting an extraordinarily difficult enemy in an environment in which Hamas operates among civilians, while Israel attempts to maintain humanitarian standards. Thus, he rejected the proposition that civilian suffering in Gaza demonstrates an Israeli intention to destroy the Arab population there. That is a crucial distinction in the speech: civilian casualties in not automatic proof of genocidal intent. However, this is precisely where the speech encountered its strongest international opposition.

The above article from The Times of Israel noted that Netanyahu strongly rejected the genocide allegation while defending the IDF but also observed that he gave relatively little attention to certain issues, including settler violence. As expected, the opposite interpretation posited by anti-Israel media characterized the speech as a defense of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and emphasized continuing international isolation. The important point here is, therefore:
Netanyahu successfully articulated Israel’s legal/moral defense, but the speech did not resolve the underlying international dispute over the claims raised concerning Israel’s response to the October 7th onslaught, death, destruction, and kidnapping by Hamas. It was an argument, and a good one, but not an adjudication.

7. The speech’s strongest emotional dimension: Jewish historical continuity – Most conventional news reporting tends to miss that Netanyahu’s references to David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jerusalem and the biblical connection to the Land of Israel were not merely historical references, but constituted the theological foundation of Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel.

That is a different proposition from saying: “Israel has a historical claim.” Netanyahu’s references essentially contended that Jewish sovereignty has a purpose beyond physical survival. The inclusion of historical, Biblical personalities gives Israel a mission involving: justice, morality, human dignity, responsibility, courage, holiness and the transformation of power into something ethically constructive. It is an important supplement to Netanyahu’s speech because the Prime Minister’s address was overwhelmingly defensive and military.

But, understanding the Biblical references begs the question: What is Israel ultimately defending itself for? This is substantially more profound than simply asking how Israel defeats Hamas or Iran.

8. The Sukkot imagery in the article: The opening Sukkot metaphor is theological rather than political. The article contrasts: permanent buildings and physical security with the temporary sukkah and divine protection. Its underlying message is that Jewish security cannot ultimately be reduced to: military superiority, intelligence, concrete walls, technology and international alliances. Those things are necessary, but they are not regarded as the ultimate source of Jewish existence.

From a theological framework, the Sukkah, or Booth, represents the proposition that Israel’s survival ultimately rests on God, rather than merely on military capability. Thus, in effect, while Netanyahu said that Israel will defend itself, the larger, philosophical issue is that Israel must understand why it exists and what its power is supposed to accomplish. This could have been expanded upon, even if briefly.

9. Netanyahu’s reference to the Netanel Shukrun episode: His reference to Netanel Shukrun was not merely rhetorical. The basic event is independently reported: Shukrun, a French Israeli, father of six from Alei Zahav, was killed in a shooting at a natural spring near Neve Tzuf on September 20, shortly before Yom HaKippurim. He had gone there with his eldest son to immerse before the holiday. His son survived, and accounts from the funeral describe Shukrun warning his son about the attacker. That event served to provide the speech with a human-scale example of the security dilemma Netanyahu described at the UN.

10. Positive reactions and results: There are several identifiable positive effects – Strong domestic reception; strong support among Netanyahu’s coalition; He put Israel’s security concerns back at the center of the discussion; the speech reinforced the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship; the speech was memorable.

11. But there were also significant negative reactions and consequences: The diplomatic walkout became the dominant visual. This is probably the single greatest problem. Instead of the world’s media showing a united diplomatic audience listening to Israel’s case, many viewers saw delegates leaving. That gave Israel’s opponents an extraordinarily useful image.

Netanyahu intended the walkout to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of his opponents. But his opponents used the same walkout to demonstrate Israel’s international isolation. Both narratives were generated by the same event.

12. International condemnations: As expected, there were objections to Netanyahu’s accusations by Qatar, Turkey, Zohran Mamdani, the leadership of the “Palestinian” Authority and the international media.

13. One particularly important criticism: what Netanyahu did NOT say: This may be more important analytically than some of what he said. The Times of Israel pointed out several omissions: no new Iranian intelligence despite expectations; little discussion of Saudi Arabia; no major new diplomatic initiative; little emphasis on expanding the Abraham Accords; and relatively little discussion of what comes after the current wars.

This is important because the speech was overwhelmingly defensive and confrontational. It explained: Why Israel is right. It was less developed on: What Israel wants the Middle East and international system to look like after the war.

14. The most important strategic deficiency in Netanyahu’s speech: The speech successfully answered: “Why should Israel continue fighting?” However, it was much less successful at answering: “What is Israel fighting toward?” That distinction is crucial.

A state cannot indefinitely define itself through its enemies. Iran cannot be the permanent definition of Israel. Hamas cannot be the permanent definition of Israel. October 7th cannot be the permanent definition of Israel. Nor can international hostility.

A more ambitious Israeli message might have been: We possess the power to defend ourselves because we have returned to sovereignty; but sovereignty carries obligations. Jewish power exists not merely to prevent Jewish death but to enable Jewish life, justice, creativity, responsibility and moral leadership.

15. Does the speech strengthen or damage Israel’s international position? The evidence points in different directions depending upon the measure being used.
Communication to Israel and Israel’s supporters: Clearly strengthened.
Communication to sympathetic governments: Potentially strengthened.
Persuasion of governments already critical of Israel: Limited.
Israel’s broader international image: Mixed to negative.
Domestic political impact: Potentially significant.

The speech was broadcast prominently in Israel and clearly resonated with Netanyahu’s supporters. Contemporary Israeli commentary nevertheless questioned whether it provided enough of a vision for the country’s future. 

16. Overall assessment: I would characterize Netanyahu’s UN address as a highly effective, defensive political speech, but a less developed strategic vision for Israel’s future.

Its greatest strengths were: clarity: Israel’s position was unmistakable; confidence: Netanyahu refused to speak as though Israel required permission to exist or defend itself; agenda-setting: Iran, Hamas, Qatar, Turkey and antisemitism were placed prominently into the international conversation; historical continuity: Israel was presented as the continuation of an ancient Jewish national story; domestic mobilization: supporters received a forceful articulation of their worldview; memorability: the walkout, pager and Starlink imagery created substantial media attention.

Its principal weaknesses were: the walkout became a symbol of international isolation; the rhetoric was too confrontational and left little room for persuasion of undecided audiences; the Gaza humanitarian and legal criticisms were answered largely through denial and counterargument, rather than through a detailed positive humanitarian program; the speech offered little concrete vision of the postwar regional order; it did not sufficiently explain what Israel wants to build, as opposed to what Israel wants to defeat.

17. When the dust settles, the speech can be understood to convey: “Israel will not surrender.” Israel’s military strength exists to protect Jewish sovereignty. Jewish sovereignty exists to enable Jewish life. Jewish life, according to the biblical conception, carries obligations toward justice, human dignity and moral responsibility. Therefore, Israel must defeat terrorism without defining itself by hatred, defend itself without abandoning morality, and exercise power without allowing power itself to become the national purpose.

The challenge for Israel is therefore to move from a narrative of “Israel versus the world” to a narrative of “Israel defending itself while contributing something morally constructive to the world.” And so we press on.

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin
© 26.09.2026
If you have any thoughts about this post, please comment, I’d be happy to hear from you.

Amalek, 2020

On By marvinsk2 Comments

Shalom all.

July in Israel is usually a hot month, at least from a weather and temperature point of view. But, this is not an ordinary July. The coronavirus is in its second wave here, with alarming increases in the number of those who tested positive to the virus. The present, coronavirus-economic crisis has affected multitudes of individuals and businesses, which, in turn, has generated 11 days of demonstrations and protests in front of the residence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and in other locations throughout Israel. The north of Israel is heating up militarily, as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is prepping for a possible confrontation with the Hezbollah, an extremist Shiite Muslim terrorist group supported by Iran, whose existence necessitates that the IDF is informed, determined and decisive in its actions. And, of course, Israel continues to deal with the disease of anti-semitism, sometimes disguised as anti-zionism or anti-Israel (collectively “anti-Israelism). It is a disease that cannot be studied in a medical laboratory under an electron microscope, nor is there a vaccine that will neutralize it and protect against it. Yet, it is pandemic and has been with us since we were freed from slavery to Egypt and were called as a nation.

The subject is too broad and pervasive to be dealt with in a short blog post. Still, my thoughts are to focus on one aspect of anti-Israelism that is not part of daily discourse, namely: Amalek, who reared his ugly head throughout the millenia and is doing so still today.

Many of those who subscribe to this blog may not be familiar with Amalek. A brief explanation is warranted. Amalek was the first enemy nation that the Israelites encountered after they crossed the Red Sea following their release from slavery under Pharaoh. According to the Book of Exodus (Exo. 17:6-16; 18:5), the Amalekites attacked the Israelites, but were defeated, although not totally destroyed. Moses was then instructed by the LORD to memorialize in writing that the LORD would utterly blot out memory of Amalek from under heaven. To commemorate the victory, Moses built an altar to the LORD and proclaimed that “The LORD has sworn; the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation.” As Israel was about to enter the land after its wilderness wanderings, she was again instructed regarding Amalek (Deut. 25:17-19):

“Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt, how he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at your rear when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore it shall come about when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget.” (emphasis mine)

The passages quoted or referred to point out several things: (1) war with Amalek continues from generation to generation; (2) Amalek attacks from the rear: (3) Amalek attacks when we are faint and weary; (4) Amalek attacks “stragglers”; (5) Amalek has no fear of God and (6) the memory of Amalek needs to be blotted out. This is not intended as a Bible study, so I won’t undertake an exegesis of the above passages. Still, some historical data is important to grasp the reason why we need to remember what Amalek did when the Israelites came out from Egypt and the final instruction: “you must not forget”.

The grandfather of Amalek was Esau, who sold his birthright to Jacob for bread and a bowl of lentil soup (Gen. 25:34). Esau determined to kill Jacob, who was the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, but only after the death of their father, Isaac. He didn’t take into account that Jacob could have children before Isaac died and, therefore, nothing would be gained if he succeeded in accomplishing his goal to kill his brother, if Jacob was survived by at least one son. Centuries later, Pharaoh tried to kill every Jewish male at birth, but God intervened and allowed the life of Moses (and other Israelite male children) to be spared. Further along in our history reveals Haman’s plan to kill all the Jews (Esther 3:6), so that none survive. The Romans did their part in destroying the nation. They were followed by religious persecution over the centuries and mass murder of Jews by the Crusaders, followed ultimately by pogroms and ultimately Hitler’s attempt at the “final solution” to rid the world of Jews. 

The goal of Amalek is the annihilation of the Jews (Psalm 83:7). A major theme in the Passover Hagaddah (the retelling of the story of the exodus from Egypt) is: “In each and every generation they rise up against us to destroy us. And the Holy One, blessed be He, rescues us from their hands.” This is the collective outcry of the Jewish people, whose history has been one long anti-semitic, anti-Jewish progrom. In every generation, there is an Amalek who rises up against the Jewish people. Even though he has been called by different names and titles, his modus operandi is always the same: Get the masses stirred up over a particular event and then blame the Jews for causing it or being behind it. Don’t confuse the masses with facts, just present the situation as being true. Hatred, prejudice, jealousy and ignorance will take over. Amalek continues to war against the Jewish people.

By whatever name he is called now, Amalek definitely exists. It is evident in the anti-semitic events taking place daily throughout the world. The mass media, politicians, anti-Israel organizations, academicians, sports personnel, news reporters, performers of all kinds, and lay people from every walk of life, rally around the call to condemn the Jew, remove any influence he may have and then eliminate him from involvement in society. Israel’s very existence is hard pill for them to swallow, so they seek ways to delegimitize Israel and accuse it of whatever wrongs they can think of. It is a very sad commentary of the times in which we live when claims of anti-semitism are being whitewashed and ignored. One scholar recently questioned: Racism is recognized as intrinsic to Western societies. Why isn’t Antisemitism?

In today’s emotionally-charged demonstrations and protests against authority and history, we turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the hatred that is swallowing up societies around the world. Conspiracy theories abound that foster anti-semitism. There is no paucity of conspiracy theories today or the people behind them who consciously or subconsciously compete with each other to come up with the best conspiracy to lay at the feet of the Jewish people.

We are told to remember what Amalek did. This is reinforced by the command: “you must not forget”. The reason is simple: If we forget, we won’t do anything to prevent it from happening again. We won’t act against Amalek’s efforts. We won’t “love our “Jewish” neighbor as ourselves”. We’ll excuse our non-action with a statement that “The Jew’s life doesn’t matter. His situation doesn’t affect my citadel of self: I, me, mine, myself, my life, my family or my possessions.” Hatred is color blind. It is a disease that affects people of every color and language and every belief and particularly, throughout the millennia, the Jew. Amalek is the manifestation of a spiritual disease, which the eternal Word of Truth describes as a hatred for God and Israel (Psalm 83:1-5). Amalek’s end is sure. It will be destruction (Number 24:20). 

It’s the beginning of a new week. With a little help, it can turn out better than last week.

He will call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him and honor him. (Psalm 91:15)

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

A tale of two crises

On By marvinsk6 Comments

Oy! As if the political crisis were not enough, along comes the Covid-19 (coronavirus) health crisis. And, along with the coronavirus comes an aggravation of the political crisis, because of efforts designed to deal with the coronavirus crisis. Sometimes, it seems as though we don’t see the forest through the trees. 

The third national election in one year took place on March 2nd. Neither of the two major parties achieved a majority to form a government. Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc gained more votes, but the center-left block, which received backing from Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu Party, with support from Joint List of Arab Parties succeeded in getting a bare majority of 61 recommendations, allowing Benny Gantz to try to set up the next government. In the meantime, the coronavirus crisis made its presence real in Israel. This, in turn, resulted in a number of decisions that were taken by the interim government of Benjamin Netanyahu that were designed to deal with the health crisis. One of them affected the functioning of the court system, which resulted in delaying Netanyahu’s trial on three counts of corruption and breach of public trust, which was moved from last week and re-scheduled for May. Cyber monitoring of telephones, used primarily by Israeli security forces, was put into force to track the locations of people affected by the disease and to identify people who may have been exposed to it. The Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) was disbanded for a week, with no new committees being formed and no government oversight of electronic invasion of people’s privacy. This created a crisis in our democracy in addition to the political crisis of still not having a government. The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the Knesset needs to get back in business by Monday,  that there can be proper supervision of electronic invasion of privacy, or the phone tracking – used for the sake of the public health – would stop. Political crisis and health crisis!

Which crisis is worse? If we need to choose between health and politics, it doesn’t appear to be a brain twister. Obviously, dealing with a pandemic should take precedence. What good is having a democratic, rights-protecting government, if it is not allowed to function in an effort to keep the voting public alive? Even in the midst of the health crisis, we still have the right to protest and demonstrate, as long as we keep a safe distance from one another. We can challenge the government’s behavior, but we need to be alive to do so.

Shabbat here is almost over. It is a day that we are to cease from our labors and regular involvements of the past week and rest. That’s essentially what we have been told that we need to do for the last six days. We are supposed to cause this day to be separate from the rest of the days of the week. Separation, isolation, seclusion and quarantine, terms that have been used to express how we are supposed to respond to the coronavirus pandemic. Along with those terms comes a new one: social distancing. As if we haven’t already done this during the last one or two decades. 

We are social beings by nature and by design. Some of us live in the concrete jungle. Others in community settings of many different kinds. We used to relate to one another face-to-face, physically. We would arrange to “do” a meal together, meet for coffee, go to the mall, the beach, for a picnic, a hike, a movie, sports, and a host of other things – together. And then, along comes the coronavirus. Our lives are turned upside down. We’re told to stay put. All places of recreation and normal social gathering are now closed. Don’t leave home, except for a health-related reason, to purchase food or other necessity, or in case of an emergency. If we do go out, we’re told to stay at least 6-1/2 feet away from someone else, don’t be in a car with more than two people, wear a facial mask, don’t touch anyone else and don’t even to touch our faces. While we are told not to go out, we often allow confusion, frustration, panic and depression to gain an easy entry. 

Social distancing is not new to our generation. Long before the coronavirus pandemic reared its ugly head, we have been physically separating from one another more and more with each new digital and electronic devise that entered the realm of what has been coined “social media”, which has done more to generate social distancing than the coronavirus. The social media revolution has affected our mental health. Technology surpassing human interacationWhat we caused to happen slowly over time for physical convenience, we are now compelled to do as a means to save our physical lives. What a turn around! Don’t get me wrong. I’m as much a product of technological social distancing as anyone reading this. Some aspects of technology are good, others are anything but good. We truly need to have discernment to know what is beneficial and what is destructive, socially, mentally, ethically, morally and even physically.

How can we redeem the time? How can we remain “social beings”, while being compelled to exercise “social distancing”? It’s clear that our way of thinking and viewing the situation needs to be reversed. Instead of thinking that we are confined, we should find creative, innovative ways to reach out. Many have written and suggested solutions how to deal with the disease and the negative affects of isolation. We need to get out of our rooms of gloom and recognize that “this, too, shall pass”. One struck a chord with me:

“Every hand that we don’t shake must become a phone call that we place. Every embrace that we avoid must become a verbal expression of warmth and concern. Every inch and every foot that we physically place between ourselves and another, must become a thought as to how we might be of help to that other, should the need arise.” In other words, being separated from one another doesn’t have to mean being cut off from one another. A burden shared is a burden half lifted. Be in touch … from a distance!

When both of these crises are over, we may well be facing new realities in all areas of government, business and social involvement. We’ll have to deal with each one in its time. We made it through Pharaoh, we’ll make it through this.

“But let all who take refuge in You be glad; let them ever sing for joy; and may You shelter them, that those who Love Your name may exult in You.” (Psalm 5:11)

“…I, the LORD am your healer.” (Exodus 15:26)

Keep looking up. Have a great week. 

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin