24 September 2009, Israeli Prime Minister delivered a stunning speech to the United Nations. His speech could be broken down in four parts: First, he denounced Ahmadinejad as a Holocaust denier and expressed his shock and horror at the Iranian Premier being given a forum for his rabid anti-Semitism at the United Nations. Second, he called upon the United Nations and its member states to prevent a nuclear Iran, which he noted, was not merely a danger to Israel, but a danger to the worlds. Third, he questioned the Goldstone Report, noting that while the United Nations saw it fit to claim that Israel had committed war crimes (despite having repeatedly warning civilians to leave the bomb zones via flyers, phone calls, and text messages), that same United Nations had not once denounced Hamas’ actions during the eight years in which Hamas terrorized the citizens of the south of Israel. He, also, reminded the Council of Israel’s right to self defence, a right endowed to all nations, including the Jewish one. Last, he discussed peace, stating quite clearly that Israel desperately wants peace, but not at the expense of its own security and state survival; peace and security must go hand-in-hand.
Zack Hayat
9/26/2009
Nice summary of the topics covered by Bibi in his speech (thank for the YouTube link!). I can’t resist comparing it to Haim Hertsug “classical” speech at the U.N at 1975 youtube.com/wa... (the speech starts @ 1:40). Even though Bibi is an excellent speaker, I still think that Hertsug’s short speech was more powerful.
J. D. Edelman
9/26/2009
I thought Bibi’s speech was nothing short of magnificent.
Charlie H. Ettinson
9/27/2009
You know, with respect to J.D. Edelman, I thought the speech was good, but not great. I think he offered a strong rebuff to the President of Iran, a strong critique of the UN and strong, clear support for the peace process and for a peaceful, 2 state solution.
I question, however, his comments like “the jury is still out on the UN,” and his more general strategy of confronting openents only and not also promoting his position. I think the speech erred on the “reactionary” side as opposed to the positive.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it was a bad speech, but when I hear people commented that it was so wonderful, I feel like I may have missed something!