Right, but not smart. - Summary of Netanyahu's and Abu Mazen's speeches at the UN
One thing is common to the two speeches given this week at the UN by Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen): neither of them spoke to the other side. Both spoke as representing their people to the world public opinion, and neither of them bothered at all to try to think what would convince the public opinion of their opponent.
Abu Mazen did not think to give the citizens of Israel an emphatic commitment and full security against terrorism, a commitment that after the signing of an agreement there would be no more 'Sheba' farms or a promise not to try to bring millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel through the back door. In short, none of the things Israelis really wanted Abu Mazen gave them.
Netanyahu didn't really try to convince the Palestinians to talk to him either - he didn't promise them that after a peace agreement there would be an end to the settlements, he didn't promise them an end to the roadblocks and humiliations, he didn't even promise to release Palestinians locked up in prisons as part of the agreement. In short, none of the things that really hurt the Palestinians made it into Netanyahu's speech.
It's not that they didn't say these things, and those who want to dig into the details can actually find texts that refer to these points in the speech, but they were there as lip service and sarcasm and certainly not as a strong and moving declaration in the style of Anwar Sadat's "No more war, No more bloodshed" in his speech in the Knesset.
Why didn't they say them?
In my courses I always teach that before thinking about the content for the speech, you should think about its strategy, and especially think "What are my goals?" and "Who is the audience in front of me?". Once we understand the different goals of Abbas and Netanyahu, and the very different contexts in which each of them is, we will also understand why they chose the strategy they chose.
Benjamin Netanyahu |
Mahmoud Abbas |
|
| audience position | hostile He felt that he was fighting alone against a world hostile to Israel in general and him personally in particular. For him, the only audiences are the Israelis and the Americans, since the rest are lost in advance. | A fan but indifferent. He feels that the world supports his people, but feels that the support is of no practical importance. |
| Purpose | Minimizing diplomatic damage, protecting the unity of public opinion and the coalition, encouraging Israel's supporters in the US and the West | Motivating the action of the UN mechanism and mobilizing support for the recognition of a Palestinian state. Be careful not to burn bridges with Israel and the US |
| strategy | Defense of Israel's righteousness, while making an effort to shame the UN and especially the Western countries | A bit of history, a bit of guilt, a bit of identification with other nations - and above all, a lot of motivation for action, a direct call to the diplomats in the hall. |
| Audience | The Israeli voter, members of the Likud center, Americans who support Israel | Security Council membership, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon |
| success | Strengthened support for him among the Israeli public and supporters of Israel in the US. Maintain an upright posture. | Keeps the issue on the agenda and puts pressure on Israel. It is also possible that he will win and achieve recognition of a Palestinian state. consolidates support for him on the Arab street. |
In conclusion, as Abba Even once said, here too Netanyahu and Abu Mazen did not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Abu Mazen by not directly addressing the Israeli voter, and Bibi by not trying to present an actual plan that the Palestinians had to take or embarrass themselves in front of the world.
Do you want to also learn to speak in front of the whole world?
Register now for a speech course
