Type: Review
Pages: 5 | Words: 1216
Reading Time: 6 Minutes


In the year 2011, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, prime minister of Israel Binyamin (Benjamin) Netanyahu delivered a passionate speech concerning the claim of Palestine Authority for recognition.

Binyamin Netanyahu Speech Review

For an analysis of the aforementioned speech the Aristotelian model is proper. Ethos, aimed to capture the audience’s attention, was made in a proper way: politician started with peaceful initiative: “Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today.” This statement aimed to confirm moral authority of Israel representative for peacekeeping procedure in the Middle East in the eyes of the present.

For the effect enhancement, Netanyahu stresses upon negative image of his state in the United Nations: “Our scientists, doctors, innovator apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall”¦Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.” Premier minister uses ethos constantly, but most intensively at the beginning of his speech. During the body of his speech he puts questions to the auditory or to President Abbas: “So how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran?” or “President Abbas, why don’t you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let’s just get on with it. Let’s negotiate peace.”

In the body of his speech Netanyahu presents the content of Israel position concerning situation in the Middle East. Logos of the speech is bolstered with pathos. Arguments on danger of international terrorism (underlined “Muslim”), Hizbullah and Hamas terroristic acts against Israeli citizens, nuclear weapon of Iran, etc., which are motivated form logical part of the body. But statements like: “I think it’s time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state” are of populist character.

Netanyahu opens his speech in an assured load tone. In the same tone experienced politician made all the report. He finished his speech with simile of community of Palestinians and Jews, stressing upon his own impossibility to make peace alone without help of president Abbas: “There’s an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace.I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand — the hand of Israel — in peace.”

Central point of Netanyahu speech is peaceful intentions of Israel concerning Palestinians during all the history of the state. Such statement contradicts is at variance with some historical fact. For example, after crossing of the Israeli border by fighters of extremist Hezbollah in July 2006 Lebanon War broke out. One-month conflict resulted in more than thousand of people were killed (mostly civilians from Lebanon). Approximately one million Lebanese were displaced, but soon they achieved possibility to return to their homes. Despite being in the state of war rules of international humanitarian law are to be enforced. After such quantity of victims among civil population it’s not reasonable to state about peaceful intentions during the history. It was not the only example of the armed conflicts, in which Israel was involved, but it is worth taking to attention.

Despite peaceful aim there are some statements, which are rather disputable. Netanyahu can’t recognize the fact that Israeli occupation of Palestine was not so peaceful. He claims: “In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.” Shlomo Ben-Ami, ex-foreign minister of Israel, current Vice-President of the Toledo Centre for Peace, analyzing this speech, points out that prime minister “could not bring himself to admit the sins of occupation, or even to utter a minimal expression of empathy with the Palestinian tragedy of dispossession and dispersion”.

State security is very important issue in the key-note of the speech. Absence of perception of Israeli military contingent on the territory of Palestine by President Abbas, Netanyahu argues: “Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they’re not sovereign countries.” Aforementioned Ben-Ami one more time shows contradictions with the peaceful intentions in this motivation. In his Has Palestine Won?, author lines between security issues and occupation of sizable portion of territory. Necessity of state security does not mean territorial expansion.

Rather contradictory statement is mentioning about “Judenrein”. Netanyahu argues that Palestine laws aim to make “ethnic cleansing”. He mentions about current laws “that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death”. After this, prime minister of Israel proclaims Israel as democratic state, which doesn’t want the Palestinians even “try to change the Jewish character of our state. We want to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.”

Nowadays multicultural world can not adopt statements like that. There is no possibility to make such states now. Claiming about oppressions of Jewish population of Palestine, he promotes Israel just for Jews. Worth mentioning the fact that in the speech are references to Jews who endured the Holocaust — global tragedy of the XX century, and other anti-Semitic actions: “Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it”. Despite this historical memory, he claims about of fear of migrants from the other state.


Summarizing all it up, it is necessary to mention that speech of prime minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu to the United Nations General Assembly in 2011 was built according to the model of Aristotle. Speech is well constructed — with three necessary elements: ethos, pathos and logos. However abundance of pathos is significant. Issue of use of such statements as “crocodile of militant Islam” and “the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel’s neighbours” is not appropriate in this speech. Overuse of historical facts, which are not proved, is typical for this speech.

Netanyahu forms vision of the Middle Eastern situation not in an unbiased way, stressing upon danger from the neighbours and possibility of nuclear attack committed by Iran. The main aim of the speech was to take Israel from the international isolation at the General Assembly of the United States. Taking to consideration all the abovementioned facts and figures of speech, it is rather disputable issue whether he succeeded with his rhetorical skill. In order to have a success in such important international institution as the General Assembly of the United Nations is, it is not enough just to make a proper speech. Concrete steppes in the procedure of peace regulation of the conflict are necessary.

Copy-pasting equals plagiarizing!

Mind that anyone can use our samples, which may result in plagiarism. Want to maintain academic integrity? Order a tailored paper from our experts.

Get my custom paper
3 hours
the shortest deadline
original, no AI
300 words
1 page = 300 words
This is a sample essay that should not be submitted as an actual assignment
Need an essay with no plagiarism?
Grab your 15% discount
with code: writers15
Related essays
1 (888) 456 - 4855