I attended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address at the United Nations, expecting a contentious speech. What stayed with me was the decision by some delegates to leave before hearing what he had to say.
My objection is straightforward: Governments that demand explanations from Israel should be willing to sit through one. Taking a seat so that your departure becomes the message may produce a powerful image. It does little to advance the difficult work of diplomacy.
Netanyahu handled the moment well. He told those who wanted to leave that they could do so, paused, and continued. Watching from inside the room, I thought his composure made the demonstration less effective. He allowed the interruption to pass without allowing it to determine whether Israel would be heard.
As delegates left the General Assembly floor, the press and guest seating remained full, without an empty seat that I could see. To me, that contrast spoke to the significance of the moment: Israel’s prime minister was representing a country, a land, and a people whose voice deserved to be heard.
There is an important distinction between an empty seat and a deliberate walkout. Absence alone does not establish a boycott. But sitting down and then conspicuously leaving as a speaker takes the podium is a statement. Those participating want their refusal to listen to become part of the story.
We should judge that choice by what it accomplishes. Did it clarify a disagreement? Advance a proposal? Or did it simply provide another image of countries turning their backs on Israel?
Netanyahu then raised a more consequential challenge to those walking out.
“In defending itself, Israel is also defending many of the countries whose delegates just left this hall,” he said. He asserted that some of their leaders had privately thanked Israel for its strikes against Iran’s nuclear program.
If those leaders privately welcomed Israel’s actions, their public conduct deserves scrutiny. They should explain why they value Israel’s contribution to their security behind closed doors, yet make a spectacle of refusing to hear its prime minister in public. Their objection would appear less absolute than they want the world to believe.
Governments should be accountable for the distance between what they acknowledge privately and what they tell their citizens. If Netanyahu’s account is accurate, these leaders want the benefits of Israel’s resolve while avoiding the political cost of acknowledging them. That is a failure of leadership that they should be pressed to answer for.
Nobody in that chamber was being asked to endorse every Israeli policy. Remaining in a seat does not constitute approval. Diplomacy depends on hearing a government’s position, challenging its claims, and pursuing an outcome despite disagreement. If listening becomes politically unacceptable, the institution loses one of its most basic functions.
That matters to Americans, too. We should want international institutions capable of serious engagement with our allies, especially when disagreements are sharp. Their usefulness should be measured by whether they can turn competing positions into practical decisions.
What troubled me about the walkout was the suggestion that Israel’s acceptance depends on its willingness to accommodate those condemning it. I heard a related demand in the political confrontation surrounding Netanyahu’s visit to New York: that Jews distance themselves from Israel to remain acceptable. These are different settings, but I reject the same premise in both. Our belonging should not require us to abandon our convictions or our connection to the Jewish state.
Netanyahu addressed New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani directly: “You can’t silence me. You can’t silence the truth.”
Mamdani rejected Netanyahu’s accusations, accusing him of using falsehoods to obscure what the mayor described as genocide against Palestinians and pointing to the International Criminal Court arrest warrant.
But my concern as a Jewish American extends beyond which politician delivered the sharper response. A mayor’s responsibility includes ensuring that Jewish residents can participate openly in city life and know that their safety and belonging are unconditional.
To me, Mamdani’s rhetoric sends a troubling message: Jewish New Yorkers are welcome so long as they leave their connection to Israel at the door. For many of us, Jewish identity and Israel go hand in hand. Asking us to separate them asks us to surrender part of who we are. A mayor should defend our right to belong as we are, without imposing a political test on our identity.
Confronting antisemitism requires defending Jews as we are, without expecting us to renounce our connection to Israel as the price of acceptance.
I did not leave the United Nations believing that every delegate who remained supported Netanyahu. Listening is not an endorsement. But governments seeking a more secure future for Israelis and Palestinians must engage with the people whose decisions will shape it.
For me, Netanyahu’s message was also a reminder that our Jewish identity and our connection to Israel cannot simply be separated to accommodate someone else’s politics. Israel is woven into our history, our prayers, and our sense of responsibility for one another. That connection does not disappear because a mayor finds it inconvenient or a delegation chooses to leave.
MAMDANI’S GENOCIDE LIE: HOW NYC’S MAYOR TURNED HAMAS’S ATROCITIES INTO ISRAEL’S CRIME
“Am Yisrael Chai.” The people of Israel live.
Those words carry both pride and responsibility. We must stand proudly as Jews and defend the Jewish state’s right to exist and protect its people. Our future cannot depend on the approval of those who turn their backs. They can choose to leave the room. We cannot walk away from our responsibility to one another.
Ariella Noveck is a journalist specializing in antisemitism and Middle East affairs, with extensive experience covering Jewish communities worldwide. She can be followed on X and Instagram @AriellaNoveck