Assignment 1 - Analysis 2
Samantha Curmi
B.A (Hons) in Journalism
Year 3
A pivotal occasion in Israeli diplomacy, Benjamin Netanyahu's 2024 speech to the UN General Assembly was characterised by impassioned rhetoric and calculated phrasing. In addition to defending Israel's stance in the face of current regional conflicts, Netanyahu's address intended to sway international opinion and mobilize support against Iran and Hamas as perceived threats.
When the speech is examined more closely from the standpoint of discourse analysis, important tactics, nonverbal clues, and communication methods that Netanyahu used to mould his message for a worldwide audience become clear.
 |
| Netanyahu addressing the UN General Assembly, 2024 (Adapted from: The New York Times, 2024) |
Agendas of Netanyahu and the UN Moderators
Like many of his prior UN speeches, Netanyahu's speech was characterised by a strong defensive and
nationalistic agenda. His portrayal of Israel as a victim and a champion of democracy was at the heart of his speech. By narrating the
October 7th attacks—a sensitive and intimate topic—he emphasised Israel's vulnerability while also highlighting its will to live and defend itself. This victimisation narrative attempted to win compassion and moral support from other countries in addition to providing justification for Israel's military operations (Bar-Tal, 2018).
Along with that, Netanyahu's speech included a clear plan to lessen Iran's sway over the Middle East. He presented Iran as the primary adversary responsible for the instability in the region, claiming that it was the architect of regional proxy conflicts and terrorism. This approach, which portrays Iran as a danger to both international stability and Israel's existence, is consistent with the larger Israeli government viewpoint (Bergman, 2020). By portraying the conflict as a fight between the forces of democracy and an axis of terrorism, Netanyahu hoped to increase support for Israel's actions.
Key Moments in the Discussion
A key part of Netanyahu's speech was his outright rebuke of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as the UN's broader stance on Israel. Netanyahu accused Abbas of neglecting to condemn Hamas for the October 7th massacres, which he cited as evidence of the Palestinian leadership's involvement in terrorism. This was a deliberate attempt to delegitimise Palestinian leadership in the eyes of the international community, which he portrayed as backing terrorism through actions or inactions (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007).
Another crucial point was Netanyahu's criticism of the United Nations, which he described as a "swamp of antisemitic bile." Netanyahu wanted to delegitimise the UN in the eyes of the Israeli public and global supporters by portraying it as an institution that is intrinsically biased against Israel. This aggressive rhetoric was intended to galvanise home support for Israel's position, portraying it as a nation unfairly condemned in the international arena. It also served to highlight Israel's ongoing issues in diplomatic forums, where it is frequently ostracised or attacked (Pappe, 2017).
Furthermore, Netanyahu's comments about Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional proxy network were critical to his attempt to legitimise Israel's military actions in Gaza and elsewhere. By portraying Iran as the ultimate threat, Netanyahu established a binary opposition: Israel and its democratic allies versus Iran and its proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. This
framing was heavily based on the concept of a "clash of civilisations," portraying Israel as a champion of Western ideals against a radical, expansionist ideology (Friedman, 2019).
One of the most crucial points is when Netanyahu persuasively presented the Middle East war as a "curse" or a "blessing". He displayed two maps that contrasted: one that showed the "curse" of terrorism, which showed the growth of Iran's proxies, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and the other that showed the possible "blessing" of regional rapprochement, especially with Gulf nations. Rod (2024) states that the "blessing" map, which represents the promise of peace and prosperity via cooperation, was first shown by Netanyahu alone. The "curse" map, which depicted the region's decline into violence under
Iranian hegemony, was then presented by him.
 |
| Netanyahu holding both maps side by side (Adapted from: JSN.org). |
Finally, he placed both maps side by side, stressing the world's stark choice: choose the path of peace or allow terror to continue (Rod, 2024).
Netanyahu's address revolved around this point, which served as both a geopolitical declaration and a warning to the world community to either accept Israel's vision for a peaceful future or suffer the repercussions of tolerating or aiding the terrorists (Rod, 2024).
Non-Verbal Cues and Body Language
Netanyahu's delivery relied heavily on nonverbal cues. Throughout the speech, his posture supported his message of Israeli strength and resolve, and his body language was calm and authoritative. Goffman (2009) asserts that in
political discourse, body language frequently functions as an extension of the spoken word. Both emotional weight and deliberate pauses intended to allow the audience to process the seriousness of his remarks were conveyed by Netanyahu's restrained movements, constant eye contact with the crowd, and silent moments of contemplation during pivotal parts of his address.
Although the maps had a metaphorical meaning, the deliberate use of visual aids (maps) and pictures showing Iran's power in the area, also gave his story more legitimacy. When used effectively, visuals in political speeches can support a speaker's points and bolster their argument. In the case of Netanyahu, the maps showed not just the physical boundaries but also the ideological "battle lines" he aimed to establish between Israel and its enemies. This is consistent with research on the persuasive potential of visual aids in rhetoric, which highlights how they can affect how clear and credible people perceive them (Tufte, 2006).
Discourse Techniques: Framing, Dichotomy, and Emotional Appeal
Netanyahu used several
rhetorical strategies in his speech to portray Israel as both a victim and a champion of civilisation. The most obvious tactic was framing, in which Netanyahu selectively provided material to influence the conflict's narrative. He established a framework that justified Israel's actions independent of the larger political or humanitarian context by concentrating on the October 7th attacks and the moral necessity of Israel's defence. This is consistent with the framing theory of Lakoff (2004), which holds that how topics are presented affects how the general public views them.
Netanyahu's use of
dichotomous rhetoric, which contrasted Israel's moral principles with the "darkness" of its enemies, was another well-known tactic. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict's complicated facts were made simpler by this dichotomy of democracy versus terror. This tactic has its origins in the process of constructing antagonistic identities in political discourse, when political actors are portrayed as either "friends" or "enemies," as defined by Laclau and Mouffe (1985). This division was exacerbated by Netanyahu's rhetoric, which made it challenging for audiences around the world to consider Israel's actions in a balanced manner.
More than that, Netanyahu's description of the human cost of the October 7th strikes demonstrated his use of
emotional appeal. In addition to trying to arouse pity, he aimed to ground the global discourse in relatable terms rather than impersonal political concerns by personalizing the experiences of the victims. This is in line with the idea of pathos, which
Aristotle defined as the use of emotional appeal to influence an audience. It has been demonstrated that emotional pleas are quite successful at generating support and solidarity, especially when used in the context of tragic occurrences (Cohen, 2011).
Evaluation of Communication Strategies
Netanyahu's communication methods were extremely effective in rallying public support for Israel's position. His framing of the issues at hand produced a sharp divide between Israel and its foes, while his use of emotive rhetoric served to personalise the war. However, the breadth of his message was constrained by his failure to address the larger geopolitical environment, especially the Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu's speech effectively reaffirmed Israel's defensive posture, but it made no attempt to address international criticism of Israeli occupation and policies in the West Bank and Gaza. This disparity could alienate members of the international community who have a more comprehensive perspective on the war, emphasising not only security but also peace and human rights.
 |
| Netanyahu addressing the UN General Assembly, 2024 (Adapted from: New York Post, 2024). |
Furthermore, Netanyahu's criticism of the UN and international organisations appealed to both Israeli and foreign audiences, but it ran the risk of widening gaps with those who view Israel as a member of the international order. International legitimacy may be a potent instrument for garnering support, as political rhetoric studies have demonstrated, and Netanyahu's language may have weakened this tactic by depicting the UN as fundamentally biased (Chomsky, 2011).
Conclusion
To conclude, Netanyahu's speech to the UN General Assembly in 2024 was a well-planned argument meant to support Israel's stance in the face of international difficulties. Netanyahu aimed to mobilise international support for Israel's position against Iran and terrorism by employing strategic non-verbal clues, emotional appeals, and dichotomous framing.
Although the speech did a good job of presenting Israel's defensive narrative, it did not fully address the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which could have alienated important international audiences. The success of such tactics depends not only on the message but also on how it is interpreted by various audiences, as political discourse studies show. Netanyahu's address was no different.
References
Bar-Tal, D. (2018). The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Social-Psychological Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/Israeli-Palestinian-conflict-social-psychological-analysis (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Bergman, R. (2020). Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations. Random House. Available at: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/215401/rise-and-kill-first-by-ronen-bergman/ (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Chomsky, N. (2011). Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War against the Palestinians. Haymarket Books. Available at: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/168-gaza-in-crisis (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Cohen, S. (2011). 'Emotional Appeal and Political Communication', Political Psychology Review, 4(1), 12-23. Available at: https://www.psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0094432 (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Friedman, T.L. (2019). Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Available at: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374292881/thankyouforbeinglate (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Goffman, E. (2009). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. Available at: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/54565/the-presentation-of-self-in-everyday-life-by-erving-goffman/ (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing. Available at: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/dont-think-of-an-elephant/ (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso. Available at: https://www.versobooks.com/books/1238-hegemony-and-socialist-strategy (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Mearsheimer, J., & Walt, S. (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Available at: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374177726/the-israel-lobby-and-u-s-foreign-policy (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Netanyahu, B. (2024) Benjamin Netanyahu sends warning to Iran at the United Nations. The Jerusalem Post. Available at: https://www.jpost.com (Accessed: 12 November 2024).
Pappe, I. (2017). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications. Available at: https://oneworld-publications.com/ (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Rod, M. (2024) Netanyahu sets out a choice between a ‘blessing’ and a ‘curse’ in UNGA speech. Jewish Insider. Available at: https://www.jewishinsider.com (Accessed: 12 November 2024).
Tufte, E.R. (2006). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press. Available at: https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi (Accessed: 12 November 2024)
Comments
Post a Comment