Netanyahu's speech - surely right. And smart?

Bibi gives an instructive lesson on how to speak to one audience - the UN General Assembly, and actually target a completely different audience - the voters in Israel and the Likud center, American public opinion and Obama pollsters. This is a very dangerous strategy, but Netanyahu had little to lose and much to gain. That's why he took the bet and also succeeded in it.

Theory: How to deal with a hostile crowd

Basically, working with a hostile crowd should be completely different from what Netanyahu did. If it is clear in advance that it is impossible to make the audience change their mind, the strategy is to at least make the audience open their minds or alternatively feel empathy towards you, even if they do not agree with your positions (Tips for persuading a hostile audience).

What could Netanyahu have done?

According to the accepted theory, Netanyahu could have turned to the Palestinians and presented them with an actual plan (or pretended to present the Palestinians with an actual plan) and then turned to the world and said 'look, they refuse'.

If he had used this technique and tried to convince the hostile audience, he would have tried to refer to the specific things that Abu Mazen presented in his speech as disturbing the Palestinians today (settlements, checkpoints, prisoners), in order to buy their agreement to discuss the larger issues on which the negotiations should take place (borders, Jerusalem, refugees). If he had turned to the world he would have done the opposite and presented a 'plan' that includes some political formula with something that looks like a concession - for example a promise to international forces or a special regime for Jerusalem - it is not really important.

Netanyahu's 'our truth' strategy

The best way to know that Netanyahu is not coming to make compromises is that his first significant argument was 'The UN is the Theater of the Absurd', in which he presents the anti-Israeli history of the UN, and the hypocritical and ridiculous record of the organization in the field of human rights. This is of course a valid argument and very convincing for Israelis and Americans, but very insulting for everyone else. If Netanyahu wanted to convince the world, one could say that this argument is right but not wise. In practice, Netanyahu wants to show Israel and the Americans how right they are.

Another way to see that Netanyahu is speaking to the Israelis and not to the Arabs is the engagement with Gilad Shalit. It is important for me to emphasize that the holding of Gilad Shalit in the captivity of Hamas without access to the Red Cross was a war crime, but it is a war crime that only interests us and from the point of view of the rest of the world it is a rather insignificant business. Moreover, while Abu Mazen presented the audience with a clear and detailed demand for implementation, it is not at all clear to whom Netanyahu is addressing the demand for Shalit's release - after all, Hamas is not at the General Assembly and in fact condemns Abu Mazen's appeal to the UN as treason. Abu Mazen himself has almost no influence in Gaza and therefore he could not provide any goods on the subject. The only ones who hear the story about a ruler whose blood boils are us, so it is clear that we are the only target audience of the speech.

repetition technique

One of the oldest tools in the world of speech is to repeat a fixed sentence structure, changing its ending each time. This creates conditioning in the audience and therefore makes them accept what is said. Netanyahu uses this technique many times and the best example comes at minute 7:30 when he says:

"The truth is that Israel wants peace.
The truth is that I want peace.
The truth is that in the Middle East peace must be based on security.
The truth is that peace cannot be made by virtue of UN declarations but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that the Palestinians refused such negotiations.
The truth is Israel wants to live in peace alongside a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace.
And the truth is that you must not allow that to happen."

It is important to emphasize that this technique is suitable for political speeches and ceremonies, but is not suitable for other types of public speaking. In a presentation or lecture for example, it will be considered insulting the intelligence of the listeners.

How to build a complex argument

Many accuse Netanyahu of being a superficial speaker, this speech shows how wrong they are. One can come up with many complaints against Netanyahu as prime minister, but superficiality is not one of them, and in this speech he builds a series of well-developed arguments that are also linked together. This happens in the central part of the speech in which Netanyahu presents the rationale for rejecting the Palestinian proposal.

This is Netanyahu at his peak. He builds a very strong logical chain here that is difficult even for people who disagree with him to disprove it. Each step in the argument is backed up by an example, and these are examples that should be familiar and convincing to a Western audience, even if not to another audience. I will summarize the argument as follows:

1. Extremist Islam is a growing danger to the entire Western world.
2. That is why Israel is on the front line of this danger and that is why it is in a conflict that it must win.
3. That is why the dangers to Israel's existence are heavy on the one hand (Iran, Syria, etc.) and immediate on the other hand (Natbeg within missile range, etc.).
4. In addition, the conflict cannot be resolved by compromise because previous attempts at compromise ended in violations by the Arab side, especially in withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon.
5. That is why Israel must not be pressured to accept reports from the outside and must be allowed to reach an agreement of its own free will.

In conclusion, Netanyahu chose not to go for a compromise but for Debate, that is, he is not trying to convince his interlocutors, but to convince a third party that he is right.

For the following articles: 

• Abu Mazen's speech at the UN - how to speak in front of a friendly audience
• Which speech was better - who won the debate

Want to learn to speak?
Whether you are a beginner or a seasoned politician contact us
Sign up for public speaking and persuasion courses