Oratory, Television, and Politics: How Netanyahu Turned the UN Platform into a Political Circus Over a Quarter Century (1998-2025)?
Before the United Nations General Assembly, Benjamin Netanyahu has appeared more than once since 1998, transforming this international forum into a personal stage where he showcases his repetitive rhetoric and visual gimmicks, in an attempt to solidify his image as a global leader.
However, over more than a quarter of a century, these speeches have only served to reinforce Israel's isolation and strengthen its image as a state that disregards international law, while Netanyahu's rhetoric remains confined to the realm of Israeli domestic propaganda.
In this research paper, we examine Netanyahu's speeches from 1998 to 2025, analyzing their content, rhetorical devices, and political context, culminating in his current position facing an international arrest warrant for war crimes, at a time when international recognition of the State of Palestine is growing.
First: Netanyahu and the Lost Magic (2025)
In his final appearance before the United Nations General Assembly in 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu appeared more like a magician who had lost his charm and could no longer grasp the spirit of the times.
Netanyahu resorted once again to the same tools he had used over a quarter of a century: cartoons, fluorescent markers, and simplistic visual symbols for which he was known in previous speeches, in an attempt to create a quick media impact.
The novelty this time was the addition of a QR code on his jacket, leading to a video documenting the events of October 7th, a move closer to a propaganda stunt than a serious political address.
But the most controversial aspect wasn't the barcode, but rather the unprecedented decision by the Israeli Prime Minister's office to order the army to install loudspeakers along the Gaza Strip border to broadcast Netanyahu's speech directly to the residents of the territory.
This behavior, reminiscent of practices of 20th-century dictatorships, revealed a dangerous conflation of military considerations with personal propaganda interests. Netanyahu forced the Israeli army to suspend some of its field operations to secure and transport the sound equipment, thus exposing soldiers to real operational risks, merely to satisfy a theatrical whim related to Netanyahu's media image.
Interestingly, the UN hall itself was almost empty during the speech, reflecting the decline in Israel's standing on the international stage, while Netanyahu insisted on directing his message to the Israeli domestic audience.
When this decision faced widespread criticism within security and media circles, Netanyahu's office responded with an explanation that observers considered a blatant lie, claiming that the broadcast was limited to the border area, while field reports confirmed that the sound could be heard inside Gaza.
This incident clearly demonstrates how Netanyahu's speeches have become both a security and a propaganda burden: a burden because they force the army to engage in tasks unrelated to its core military function, and a propaganda burden because they reveal a decline in substantive political discourse in favor of hollow theatrical displays that resonate only within the Israeli media.
Thus, the 2025 speech marked the nadir of Netanyahu's international career, where the former charm has faded, leaving only empty theatrics and continued denial of his international isolation.
Second – Netanyahu's Speeches Between 1998 and 2024
Here, we review and analyze the evolution, changes, and key messages in Netanyahu's speeches since 1998:
(1) The 1998 Speech: Between Warning and Diplomatic Denial
In 1998, Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly for the first time as Prime Minister of Israel, having previously gained experience as the Israeli ambassador to the international organization. His appearance came at a crucial political juncture, as he sought to counter Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat's intention to declare a Palestinian state from the UN platform.
In his speech, Netanyahu attempted to combine a warning tone directed at the Palestinian leadership with a conciliatory tone aimed at the international community. Israeli media coverage reflected this contradiction clearly; Maariv newspaper headlined his speech "A Warning to Arafat," while Yedioth Ahronot preferred to highlight a passage in which he presented himself as a peace advocate, quoting him as saying: "Many often accuse me of not wanting peace, and nothing could be further from the truth."
A few days after the speech, US President Bill Clinton brought Netanyahu and Arafat together at the White House in a renewed attempt to revive the peace process. The meeting led to an announcement of an upcoming summit, similar to Camp David. However, these efforts quickly stalled, consistent with the approach that characterized Netanyahu's first term, which ended prematurely.
The 1998 speech can be seen as a defining moment in Netanyahu's political career; This marked the first time he formulated a dual strategy: outwardly expressing a willingness for peace on international platforms, while simultaneously obstructing any path that could lead to an independent Palestinian state. This early contradiction would later become a defining characteristic of Netanyahu's rhetoric and policies throughout the 2010s.
(2) The 2009 Speech: The Beginnings of Netanyahu's "Visual Propaganda"
Policy Eleven years after his first speech, Benjamin Netanyahu returned to the UN stage in 2009 during his second term as Prime Minister.
This appearance represented a pivotal moment for him; he later stated that he had "waited his entire life for this speech”.
His appearance came just one day after the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, known for his Holocaust denial, thus providing Netanyahu with an "ideal adversary" that allowed him to shift focus away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and engage in a rhetorical battle against a more abstract and symbolic "external enemy."
Netanyahu employed dramatic visual aids, almost theatrical in nature, including maps of the Auschwitz concentration camp and what he claimed were historical documents to "prove" the reality of the Holocaust.
In this stance, Netanyahu addressed the international community, but his arguments did not resonate in Iran. However, his visual presentation succeeded in capturing the attention of both Israeli and international media.
For example, Yediot Aharonot, then the most influential news outlet in Israel, headlined Netanyahu's speech with his famous quote: "For this speech, I have waited my entire life." Political commentator Nahum Barnea wrote in his column about Netanyahu that he was "at his best”.
The 2009 speech represents another pivotal moment in Netanyahu's international discourse; it established the use of the Holocaust as a central rhetorical tool, framing contemporary conflicts as an extension of an ongoing existential struggle. This strategic use of history would later become a fundamental pillar of all his international speeches, including those he delivered over the following two decades.
(3) The 2011 Speech: Emptying Hope and Ignoring Humanity
In September 2011, Netanyahu took the stage at the United Nations to deliver his third address to the General Assembly, a pivotal moment coinciding with Mahmoud Abbas's request for recognition of the State of Palestine.
The event carried unprecedented political weight, but Netanyahu chose to transform it into a rhetorical battle, its primary objective being to delegitimize the Palestinian initiative, rather than offering any genuine vision for the future.
Although this period coincided with the continued captivity of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Palestinian factions, Netanyahu did not use this global platform to emphasize his efforts to secure his release or to call for decisive international action. He merely mentioned it in passing, then quickly returned to empty rhetoric centered on rejecting the two-state solution. This indifference reflected Netanyahu's chronic dilemma: reducing pressing humanitarian issues to mere details in pursuit of his political and propaganda ambitions.
This pattern is repeating itself today, in the 2023-2025 "Iron Swords" war, where Netanyahu faces mounting internal pressure from the families of Israeli hostages in Gaza, who demonstrate daily in Tel Aviv and even outside the UN building during his speeches. Yet, he continues to ignore their plight or address it with empty rhetoric, preferring to cling to military escalation and political propaganda rather than making it a central focus of his agenda.
As journalist Nahum Berna wrote from New York in 2011: "The so-called peace process can be closed down; there will be no Palestinian state, and there will be no democratic Jewish state either. All that will remain are fiery speeches and endless war." Looking back from 2011 to 2025, it can be said that Netanyahu remained trapped in this vicious cycle, with his rhetoric dominated by theatrics, while fundamental Israeli issues—from the Shalit case to the current detainees—were neglected.
(4) The 2012 Speech: The Cartoon Bomb
In his fourth speech before the UN General Assembly in 2012, Benjamin Netanyahu presented one of the most controversial scenes of his political career: he displayed a cartoon drawing of a bomb, similar to those seen in animated films, waving it in front of the audience to warn that Iran "would reach the nuclear threshold by next spring or summer at the latest," implying that it would be only a few weeks or months away from possessing a nuclear weapon.
This scene generated widespread reactions, with the image becoming a subject of global ridicule, particularly on social media, which was then experiencing its initial surge in popularity.
Netanyahu seemed to be sending an implicit message about shifting focus from the "Palestinian issue" to the "Iranian issue," redefining the international agenda through a theatrical performance that diverted attention away from the Palestinian cause.
However, despite its media impact, this approach revealed its limitations on the international stage. While some Israeli newspapers praised Netanyahu's ability to grab attention, political communication analysts argued that the speech failed to achieve a tangible impact on the intended audience—decision-makers in major capitals such as Washington, Moscow, Berlin, and Beijing.
As Yonni Cohen-Edov, an Israeli known for his debating skills, explained in a special analysis for Yediot Aharonot, "The real problem is that Netanyahu addresses the international community, but his messages are actually directed at the Israeli public. The major powers have heard these claims before and they haven't found anything in them to change their positions”.
Therefore, the "cartoon bomb" speech presented a striking paradox: an effective propaganda tool within the Israeli domestic context, but a symbol of ridicule and a lack of seriousness on the international stage, where it did not lead to any political breakthrough or change in the positions of influential powers.
(5) The 2013 Speech: Deliberate Isolation and Unilateral Threat
In his fifth speech before the UN General Assembly in 2013, Benjamin Netanyahu continued to escalate his rhetoric, moving further towards a discourse based on ideological extremism and unilateralism, a trend that would deepen over time as his circle of political allies narrowed, consisting increasingly of more radical, nationalist-religious factions.
From the UN podium, Netanyahu declared, "If we have to, we will stand alone against Iran", portraying Israel as a state ready to confront the Iranian nuclear threat in isolation from the international community.
Although the threats he made in his previous speech (2012) regarding Iran's alleged proximity to a nuclear bomb had not materialized, this did not deter him from moving forward with a new, escalating discourse, replacing the famous "cartoon bomb" image with another symbolic one reflecting his stance as someone facing the world alone.
Interestingly, this contradiction did not pose any obstacle for Netanyahu, nor was it seriously questioned by the Israeli media, which is often criticized for its short political memory and tendency to focus on current events rather than holding leaders accountable for unfulfilled promises.
Thus, the 2013 rhetoric appeared to be a continuation of the "political theater" tactic that Netanyahu skillfully employs: using external threats as a tool to bolster his image domestically as a leader who prioritizes security, even at the expense of his credibility on the international stage.
(6) The 2014 Speech: "Hamas is a key player"
Benjamin Netanyahu's sixth speech before the UN General Assembly in September 2014 came just weeks after the conclusion of Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, which left hundreds of Palestinian civilians dead and thousands wounded.
In this context, Netanyahu chose to present a different narrative: instead of focusing on Israel's responsibility for the war, he declared that ISIS and Hamas were "branches of the same poisonous tree," in an attempt to frame the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within the global war on terror.
On the domestic political front, Netanyahu faced pressure from ministers in his government—most notably Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party—to push the Israeli army into a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza with the aim of "overthrowing Hamas rule." He thwarted this pressure using his usual tactics: calculated leaks to the media, followed by adopting what later became known as the "Hamas as a key player" theory.
For Netanyahu, the continued existence of Hamas as the de facto authority in Gaza served as a barrier to the rise of more moderate Palestinian forces that might lead Israel back to the path of negotiations and peace agreements. He therefore directed his criticism at the Palestinian Authority, directly accusing Mahmoud Abbas of "responsibility for the war crimes committed by Hamas."
As usual, the speech was not devoid of "visual manipulation": a magnified image of Palestinian children standing next to rocket launchers in Gaza was used as a symbolic tool to justify Israeli military attacks. In addition, the Iranian issue, which Netanyahu consistently emphasized as the main focus of his warnings in all his speeches, remained prominent.
However, a critical Israeli analysis – published by Forbes in Hebrew – revealed a striking paradox: "The speech was well-structured and succeeded in delivering a masterful defense of Israel before the United Nations, to the point that some compared Netanyahu to a brilliant lawyer in an international court. But the real problem wasn't the content of the speech, but rather the lack of an attentive international audience. While previous leaders like Rabin, Sharon, or Olmert possessed the diplomatic and personal standing that ensured their words were taken seriously in major capitals, Netanyahu, despite his eloquence, no longer enjoys the same credibility."
(7) The 2015 Speech: Silence that Echoed in Empty Space
In his seventh address to the United Nations General Assembly in 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu sought to replace his traditional visual aids – such as cartoon bombs or propaganda images – with a more dramatic theatrical device: silence.
He stood on the podium, motionless, for a full 40 seconds, attempting to convey a message of protest against the "international community's silence" regarding Iranian statements calling for Israel's destruction.
But what Netanyahu portrayed as a dramatic theatrical performance actually turned into a comical moment. The media and social media users ridiculed the scene, deeming it a poor performance lacking political depth, more akin to a school play than a speech by a head of state.
While Netanyahu intended to embarrass the world with his silence, the impact of his gesture on the international stage was akin to a vacuum—it failed to sway influential capitals or prompt them to reconsider their policies.
Internally in Israel, his supporters viewed the move as an example of "bold confrontation" and a symbolic weapon in his battle against Iran.
His critics, however, saw the episode as emblematic of Netanyahu's crisis: his ability to stage attention-grabbing spectacles, yet ones that have no real impact on the balance of international relations or the positions of major powers.
As some Israeli analysts sarcastically remarked, "If Netanyahu had made silence his consistent policy instead of delivering annual speeches, it might have been more beneficial to his political career”.
Thus, the 2015 speech reinforced the continuation of the same trend: a shift from visual drama to theatrical performance, where Netanyahu's UN speeches became more about domestic consumption than tools for external influence, their content confined to local screens while their impact faded on the international stage.
(8) The 2016 Speech: The Double-Talk on Peace and Settlements
Benjamin Netanyahu returned to the UN podium in 2016 with a speech that appeared outwardly different, contradicting his public rejection of the Palestinians' request for statehood just five years earlier (2011), and four years after his display of the cartoon bomb (2012).
Before the assembly, Netanyahu declared that he "still believes in the two-state solution for two peoples," and reiterated that the conflict "was never about settlements, but about the existence of a Jewish state”.
He even went further, proposing an exchange of speeches with Mahmoud Abbas, with the latter addressing the Knesset while he would deliver his speech from Ramallah.
But these gestures were merely a reiteration of his double-dealing approach: using a rhetoric of "peace" abroad to enhance his international image, while continuing on the ground to entrench the occupation and expand settlements.
While presenting himself as a leader open to political solutions, his government was rapidly moving toward creating a reality that would make a Palestinian state virtually impossible.
The Israeli media, as usual, welcomed the speech, portraying it as an attempt to break the deadlock and project a more moderate image, but the international community read it for what it truly was: a mere opportunistic maneuver timed to coincide with the US elections, as Netanyahu anticipated an administration that might be less receptive to his policies than a subsequent administration led by Donald Trump.
Thus, the 2016 speech represented another chapter in Netanyahu's pattern of duplicity: threats and theatrics on the international stage (2011-2012), followed by talk of "peace" (2016), but the outcome on the ground remained the same: no political progress, only further isolation for Israel and erosion of its credibility.
(9) The 2016 and 2017 Speeches: The Disconnect Between Words and Actions
In his eighth speech in 2016, Netanyahu attempted to portray himself as a pragmatic leader capable of adopting a "moderate" discourse in line with international sentiment, particularly during the US elections when Hillary Clinton was expected to win the presidency.
In this context, he declared that he "remained committed to the two-state solution," asserting that the crux of the conflict "had never been about the settlements, but about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state”.
He went further, proposing a symbolic exchange of speeches with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: Abbas would address the Knesset, while he would speak in Ramallah. Despite the conciliatory nature of this proposal, the speech remained closer to a propaganda tactic aimed at Western capitals than a viable political initiative, especially given the policies he continued to pursue, such as accelerating settlement activity and marginalizing any genuine negotiation process.
In 2017, Netanyahu took his rhetorical theatrics to a new level, addressing the Iranian people directly in Farsi, declaring, "You are not our enemy”.
This move appeared to be a deliberate attempt to portray himself as a global leader, transcending traditional state-to-state rhetoric, while domestically he faced mounting legal pressure over corruption allegations.
However, the message seemed more like empty theatrics than substantive political content, as it was not followed by any concrete actions regarding Iran or the Palestinian issue.
These two instances reveal a structural continuity in Netanyahu's UN speeches: a combination of conciliatory or showy rhetoric aimed at an international audience, alongside policies on the ground that directly contradict it.
Just as he ignored a serious commitment to a two-state solution in his 2011 and 2012 speeches, replacing it with political theatrics about Iran, he repeated the same tactic in 2016 and 2017: verbal promises and media messages for international consumption, while his actions on the ground entrenched the occupation and closed the door to any genuine settlement.
(10) The 2018 and 2020 Speeches: Recycling the Rhetoric and Marginalizing Palestine
After more than a decade of regularly addressing the UN, Netanyahu's 2018 speech seemed to be a mere rehash of his previous performances. He again resorted to visual aids, this time with an image of what he described as "the secret nuclear reactor in Tehran," attempting to keep the Iranian issue at the forefront of international attention.
Simultaneously, on the ground, he was consolidating his "conflict management" policy, which revolved around the equation "Hamas is a strategic asset": allowing the flow of US dollars to Hamas. Israel's policy towards Gaza was used as a mechanism to manage tensions, rather than seeking substantive political solutions. Netanyahu continued to portray Iran as the primary enemy in his foreign policy rhetoric, while treating Gaza as a "functional barrier" to prevent any momentum that might revive the peace process with the Palestinian Authority.
In his 2020 speech, two months after the devastating Beirut port explosion, Netanyahu seized the opportunity to repeat this tactic by highlighting "Iran's Lebanese branch," presenting what he described as "new revelations" about weapons storage sites.
As usual, he reiterated the threat that Iran "will have enough uranium within months to make two nuclear bombs." Despite his attempt to exploit the regional situation by linking Hezbollah to the collapsing Lebanese state, the speech remained mere rhetoric and had no real impact on the positions of international powers, which were already familiar with these unoriginal warnings.
The 2018 and 2020 speeches reveal that Netanyahu remained trapped in the same pattern: a theatrical discourse replete with "dramatic revelations," presented through visual displays or repeated threats, while in reality, there was no substantive change in Israeli policies. As in his previous speeches (2011, 2012, 2014), the gap between words and actions remained the dominant characteristic: promises and threats on the international stage, contrasted with the day-to-day management of the conflict, perpetuating the occupation without any political horizon.
(11) The 2023 Speech: Saudi Arabia as a Lifesaver
In 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly at a highly complex juncture, both domestically and internationally. He faced nine months of widespread protests in Israel against what was perceived as his government's attempt at a judicial coup, while US President Joe Biden distanced himself from Netanyahu and refused to receive him at the White House. Simultaneously, Gaza was experiencing ongoing unrest along the border.
This was two weeks before events escalated into the attack that resulted in the deadliest security losses in modern Israeli history.
In his speech, Netanyahu focused on normalization with Saudi Arabia, a country with which Israel had never engaged in military conflict. He presented a potential agreement with Saudi Arabia as a means to restore domestic legitimacy and open channels of communication with the US administration, but essentially, it was a way to deflect attention from his own legal troubles.
Thus, he continued his typical pattern of separating media performance from political reality: a speech designed for show and image-building for both domestic and international audiences, while practical actions ignored the real crises on the ground, whether in Gaza or the broader Palestinian issue.
This speech represents an extension of Netanyahu's practice since 1998, balancing a rhetoric of threats and media escalation with the image of a global leader, reflecting a clear disconnect between words and actions. This demonstrates the continuity of his political and propaganda style, despite significant changes in the surrounding political and security context.
(12) The 2024 Speech: Displaying Power Amidst the Assassination of Nasrallah
In his thirteenth address to the UN General Assembly, Benjamin Netanyahu continued his usual pattern of theatrical speeches, with a blatant disregard for practical and political realities.
Netanyahu focused on the opportunities for achieving peace with Saudi Arabia and the Arab world, but his speech lacked any concrete initiatives or practical steps, reflecting the continued disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions.
This speech was notably linked to the assassination attempt against Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, which occurred while Netanyahu was in New York.
Although he had no direct involvement, his supporters presented the incident as part of a "well-conceived plan," using the event to bolster Netanyahu's image as a decisive leader, thus further emphasizing the theatrical nature of his political strategy.
This speech exemplifies Netanyahu's typical approach: a visual and strategic display of power, the manipulation of major events for domestic propaganda purposes, and a disregard for actual diplomatic engagement on the international stage. This reinforces the disconnect between his media performance and diplomatic reality, and underscores Israel's continued international isolation despite its intensive internal media campaigns.
Thirdly: Key Characteristics of Netanyahu's Speeches at the United Nations
1. Dichotomy between Speech and Action
• Netanyahu's promises or conciliatory rhetoric often contradict his actual policies on the ground, such as advocating for a two-state solution while continuing settlement expansion or ignoring Palestinian initiatives.
• Example: His 2016 and 2017 speeches, where he spoke about a two-state solution and engaging with Abbas, while continuing to entrench the occupation and marginalize the peace process.
2. Visual and Theatrical Propaganda
• Using attention-grabbing visuals, such as maps or cartoons depicting bombs or Palestinian children, to reinforce specific messages or threats.
• Example: His 2009, 2012, and 2018 speeches, which used maps, cartoons, and visual imagery to capture media attention.
3. Focus on the Iranian Threat
• Netanyahu consistently portrays Iran as the central threat in his warnings, making it the main enemy in his media campaigns, prioritizing the nuclear threat over Palestinian or humanitarian issues.
• Example: His 2012, 2013, 2018, and 2020 speeches.
4. Marginalization of Humanitarian Issues
• Issues such as the Shalit case, Israeli detainees, Palestinian prisoners, or civilians in Gaza are often mentioned only in passing, without any concrete, practical initiatives.
• Example: His 2011 speech, and his 2015 speech (protesting against Iran without focusing on humanitarian issues).
5. Unilateral Threats and Isolationism
• Portraying Israel as a state forced to confront threats alone, disregarding the international role, to bolster his image as a strong leader and "guardian of security."
• Example: The 2013 speech, where he stated: "If we have to, we will stand alone against Iran."
6. Exploiting Major Domestic Events
• Transforming regional crises or attacks, such as the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah or the Beirut port explosion, into tools to enhance his image domestically and defend himself or his government.
o Example: The 2024 speech, where the Nasrallah assassination was used to bolster his position with Israeli public opinion.
7. Using History to Frame the Discourse
• Employing the Holocaust or other historical events to reinforce the narrative of an ongoing existential struggle, using the past to justify current policies.
o Example: The 2009 speech on the Holocaust, and the continued invocation of history in subsequent speeches.
8. Prioritizing the Domestic Audience
• Although addressing the General Assembly, the messages are often geared towards his domestic audience and aimed at influencing Israeli public opinion, rather than achieving genuine international impact.
o Example: The 2012, 2016, and 2017 speeches, where threats and promises were reiterated to enhance his domestic image.
9. Employing Symbolic Performance and Dramatic Pauses
• Relying on non-verbal means such as prolonged silence (2015 speech) or dramatic visuals and gestures for psychological impact, instead of offering practical solutions or policies. 10. The Persistence of Strategic Disconnect
• A consistent pattern since 1998, characterized by a conciliatory or threatening rhetoric on international platforms, coupled with practical policies that maintain the status quo, entrench the occupation, and limit any potential for a political solution.
• This disconnect is evident in all of Netanyahu's statements, from 1998 to 2024, serving as a defining structural element of his political and propagandistic approach.
In conclusion,
Over the past quarter-century, a study of Benjamin Netanyahu's speeches before the United Nations General Assembly reveals that for this leader, the international stage has not only become a genuine diplomatic tool, but also a theatrical platform for projecting his personal and political image
From his 1998 speech, which laid the foundation for his rhetoric of double standards, to the visual and theatrical displays in his 2009, 2012, and 2015 speeches, and culminating in his recent performances in 2024 and 2025, a consistent pattern emerges: a combination of captivating media performance on the one hand, and policies in practice that reinforce occupation and marginalize any path toward negotiation on the other.
Netanyahu's speeches have consistently focused on portraying Iran as the primary threat, employing historical narratives and human suffering for symbolic weight, and exploiting major domestic events to bolster his image before the Israeli public, all while disregarding international credibility and viable political solutions. This persistent pattern has contributed to Israel's growing isolation on the international stage, transforming these speeches into mere propaganda tools rather than instruments of genuine influence on global decision-makers.
In essence, a quarter-century of Netanyahu's UN speeches exemplifies a clear case of "strategic dissonance": a conciliatory or threatening rhetoric on international platforms, contrasted with policies that perpetuate the status quo. This underscores that international platforms alone are insufficient to translate media spectacle into genuine diplomatic impact.
Therefore, analyzing these speeches offers a valuable case study of how a political leader can utilize media discourse to consolidate domestic power while undermining his international standing, providing important insights into the dynamics of media, politics, and power in the modern era.
Sources and references
- משרד ראש הממשלה
https://www.gov.il/he - נאומי נתניהו באו"ם (1998-2025): מפלסטין ועד פלסטין
https://www.the7eye.org.il/563863 - דוגרי, מה כבר שמענו בעבר מנאום נתניהו?
https://news.walla.co.il/item/1863254 - "נאום השתיקה" של נתניהו: "ישראל תעשה הכול כדי להגן על עצמה"
https://news.walla.co.il/item/2893912 - נאום ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו באסיפה הכללית של האו"ם
https://netanyahu.org.il - נאום ראש הממשלה נתניהו בעצרת הכללית של האו"ם בניו יורק
רה"מ פנה לחטופים ותקף אחרי הצונאמי המדיני: מדינה פלסטינית? טירוף. זו התאבדות, לא נסכים
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/bkq8j11v2gg#!/replace
- עבודה על נאומי נתניהו, נאום בר-אילן, שיח רטורי, נאומי טלויזיה הקורונה בידוד חברתי, נאומים בקונגרס האמריקני, נאום באו"ם נגד אירן, רטוריקה ביבי בנימין נתניהו
https://freeacademic.com/products/3755 - In Speech To Congress, Netanyahu Blasts 'A Very Bad Deal' With Iran
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way
