After delegates walked out of the General Assembly, Israel’s prime minister stayed at the podium and delivered an unapologetic defense of his country, confronting accusations over Gaza while turning his fire on Qatar, Turkey and Iran.

Benjamin Netanyahu walked into the United Nations General Assembly knowing that a significant number of delegates had no intention of listening to him.

As the Israeli prime minister approached the podium, delegations began leaving the chamber. Netanyahu appeared entirely prepared for the spectacle. Rather than ignoring the walkout, he opened by addressing it directly.

“If there are any other moral cowards who haven’t yet left this hall, please do so now.”

That opening established the tone for everything that followed.

Netanyahu did not come to New York to deliver a conciliatory diplomatic speech. He came to defend Israel’s conduct during nearly three years of war, challenge some of the most serious accusations leveled against his government and confront countries he says have helped create an international campaign against the Jewish state.

Whatever you think of Netanyahu, it was a remarkable speech to watch. He stood before an institution where Israel has faced sustained criticism and, rather than soften his message for the room, challenged his critics directly.

The result was less a traditional diplomatic address than a prosecution of Israel’s case before a deeply divided international audience.

Netanyahu Confronts the Genocide Accusation

The most consequential portion of Netanyahu’s speech concerned Gaza.

Israel continues to face accusations that its military campaign amounts to genocide, allegations that have become central to the international debate surrounding the war. The International Court of Justice has issued provisional measures in the genocide case brought by South Africa, but those measures are not a final judgment on the merits of the genocide allegation. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres this week again emphasized the extraordinary scale of death and destruction in Gaza and called for compliance with international law and the court’s orders.

Netanyahu rejected the accusation outright.

“What genocidal regime gives a million polio vaccinations to the enemy’s population? What genocidal regime enables the distribution of 2 million tons of food into Gaza? That’s a ton for every person.”

Then he delivered his conclusion:

“Accusing Israel of genocide is the greatest lie of the century.”

Those are Netanyahu’s claims and his defense of Israel’s conduct. They will certainly not settle the argument internationally, particularly among governments and organizations that have reached dramatically different conclusions about the war.

But his broader argument was clear: Israel was attacked on October 7, 2023, and he believes the international conversation has increasingly separated everything that followed from the event that began this war.

That is something I have struggled to understand throughout this conflict.

There was no war between Israel and Gaza on October 6, 2023. The next morning, Hamas-led terrorists crossed into Israel, murdered civilians and took hostages back into Gaza. Israel responded with overwhelming military force.

You can debate that response. You can scrutinize individual operations, military decisions and Israeli government policy. You should. No government should be beyond scrutiny during wartime.

But Israel’s right to defend its population cannot simply disappear from the discussion.

That was the case Netanyahu was making to a room in which many delegations had already decided they would rather leave than hear him make it.

A Different Kind of War

Netanyahu then widened his argument beyond the battlefield.

Israel, he said, is fighting not only a military war but an information war over how the conflict is understood around the world.

“Our brave soldiers have been valiantly fighting a seven-front war, but there’s an eighth front to this war. It’s the war for truth.”

He singled out Qatar, accusing the Gulf state of spending enormous sums over decades to shape opinion through universities and media organizations, including Al Jazeera.

Qatar strongly disputes the Israeli portrayal of its role. Doha has positioned itself as a mediator in the conflict and says it has worked to secure ceasefires, humanitarian relief and the release of detainees and hostages. Qatar’s own address to the General Assembly this week presented almost the mirror image of Netanyahu’s argument, accusing Israel of devastating Gaza and failing to meet its obligations.

That contrast is worth understanding because it illustrates just how far apart the competing narratives have become.

Netanyahu sees Israel fighting a military campaign while simultaneously confronting a global political and information campaign designed to isolate it.

His opponents see Israel as using that argument to deflect criticism of the enormous civilian toll and destruction in Gaza.

Both arguments are now playing out not only on television screens and social media but inside the United Nations itself.

Netanyahu Turns on Erdogan

Netanyahu reserved some of his harshest language for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Erdogan has become one of Israel’s most outspoken international critics and has used his own appearance at the General Assembly to accuse Israel of genocide and call for greater international pressure on Jerusalem.

Netanyahu answered personally.

“Erdogan is a tyrant. He also hosts the Hamas terror chiefs. He has murdered thousands of Kurdish civilians. He denies the Armenian genocide. He jails journalists and opposition leaders.”

He also accused Turkey of occupying northern Cyprus and threatening Greece before turning to Erdogan’s rhetoric concerning Jerusalem.

“He says he’s going to be the ruler of Jerusalem. No, sir, you won’t. This is our country, our city, our eternal capital.”

This was Netanyahu at his most confrontational. There was virtually none of the careful diplomatic language normally associated with a General Assembly address.

He named his adversaries and attacked them directly.

And then he turned to Iran.

A Starlink Terminal and a Message to Tehran

This was probably the most theatrical moment of the speech.

Netanyahu brought a Starlink terminal with him to the podium while discussing Iran’s restrictions on communications and access to information. He described the device as a means for ordinary people to access information beyond government censorship.

Then he offered it to the Iranian delegation.

“Mr. President, I’m going to leave this device with you so you can give it to the Iranian delegation so when they inevitably defect, they too will be able to freely tell their story on social media.”

It was political theater, obviously.

But it was effective political theater.

Later, according to the account discussed during my broadcast, Israel’s U.N. ambassador attempted to deliver the device to the Iranian delegation. They declined it. Given the history of Israeli intelligence operations involving electronic devices, I cannot say I blame Iranian officials for being somewhat reluctant to accept electronics handed to them by the Israelis.

Netanyahu even invoked that history himself when he produced another prop: a pager, an unmistakable reference to the extraordinary 2024 operation in which communications devices used by Hezbollah members exploded across Lebanon.

The symbolism was impossible to miss.

His message to Iran and its allies was essentially this: Israel has demonstrated that it can reach into organizations and places once believed to be beyond its reach.

The Empty Seats Told Only Part of the Story

One of the most interesting aspects of the speech was the diplomatic choreography surrounding it.

Delegates walked out, but not everyone did. The United Arab Emirates remained, according to the account I reviewed during the live broadcast. Armenia also remained in the chamber. I found Armenia’s decision particularly interesting given the complicated history of relations between Armenia, Israel and Turkey.

Netanyahu argued that some governments publicly condemning Israel have privately benefited from Israeli actions against Iran.

“Israel is also defending many of the countries whose delegates just left this hall.”

He then made an even more striking assertion:

“Many of their leaders even thank us privately for taking out Iran’s nukes.”

That claim cannot be independently confirmed from the speech itself, and Netanyahu did not publicly identify the leaders he said had privately thanked him. But the argument reflects one of the central contradictions in Middle Eastern diplomacy: governments can fiercely criticize Israel in public while sharing serious security concerns about Iran and its regional network.

The public diplomacy and the private security relationships are not always the same thing.

That is one reason I paid particular attention to who stayed in the room as well as who left it.

Netanyahu’s Argument About Christians

Netanyahu also challenged the international community over the treatment of Christians in the Middle East.

“Their numbers are plummeting everywhere in the Middle East where they’re being persecuted and hounded except one place, my country, Israel, where the Christian community is growing, thriving, succeeding.”

He then pointed to Bethlehem, arguing that its Christian share of the population fell dramatically after the city came under Palestinian Authority administration.

The demographic history of Bethlehem is more complicated than a single cause; emigration, economic conditions, conflict and political changes have all contributed to the decline of its Christian population. But Netanyahu’s larger point was directed squarely at governments and activists who regularly condemn Israel while, in his view, devoting considerably less attention to the persecution of religious minorities elsewhere in the region.

It was another example of the structure running through the entire address: Netanyahu was not simply defending Israeli policy. He was accusing Israel’s critics of applying standards to the Jewish state that they do not consistently apply elsewhere.

The United Nations Put on Trial

That may ultimately be the most important thing about this speech.

Netanyahu was ostensibly standing before the United Nations to answer Israel’s critics. Instead, he attempted to reverse the proceeding and put the United Nations itself on trial.

And he was not alone.

Argentine President Javier Milei also used his appearance to deliver a sweeping criticism of the institution, accusing it of failing in its responsibilities on collective security and human rights. The broader General Assembly debate has exposed profound divisions over Gaza, Iran, the role of international institutions and the future of the international order itself.

That is why I think Netanyahu’s speech mattered beyond Israel.

The United Nations was created to provide a place where countries that profoundly disagree can still confront one another with words rather than weapons. There is value in that, even when the institution fails spectacularly to live up to its own ideals.

But there is also something revealing about watching diplomats walk out rather than remain in their seats and hear the leader of a country they condemn.

Netanyahu knew they were going to leave. He came anyway. And when they walked out, he delivered his argument to the empty seats. Whether those delegates agreed with him was never really the point. They obviously did not.

The point was that Israel’s prime minister wanted the world to hear his case directly: that Israel sees itself not as the aggressor portrayed by many of its critics, but as a country fighting enemies on several fronts while simultaneously fighting an international battle over the legitimacy of defending itself.

His critics will reject that characterization. Israel’s supporters will see the speech as an overdue confrontation with an institution they believe has treated the Jewish state unfairly.

But after watching the address, one thing was difficult to miss. Netanyahu did not arrive at the United Nations asking for its approval. He arrived prepared to challenge its judgment.

The new Arctic security agreement strengthens Washington’s position in Greenland and shuts the door on a Russian or Chinese military foothold. But despite the president’s sweeping announcement, the United States has not taken possession of Greenland — and many of the military rights being celebrated today have existed for decades.

After several days traveling through Ukraine, Poland and Germany, I finally made it back home to Panama. I had barely unpacked — or, more accurately, discovered that the airline had apparently decided to keep my luggage — when President Donald Trump announced what he described as a historic agreement over Greenland.

Trump said the United States had secured “permanent control over security” in Greenland and would have the ability to prevent American adversaries from establishing military bases, deploying forces or making sensitive investments there. He called it an agreement without an expiration date and said the United States would begin developing a larger military presence on the island.

That sounds enormous. It sounds almost as if the United States finally got Greenland after all.

But that is not what happened.

Denmark and Greenland remain sovereign over the territory, and their leaders have been considerably more restrained in describing the agreement. They say the arrangement strengthens security in the Arctic and North Atlantic while preserving Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination. The final agreement is expected to be signed around the United Nations General Assembly and still must go through the appropriate parliamentary procedures.

The more interesting question is not whether Trump “got Greenland.” He didn’t.

The question is what America actually gained.

America Was Already There

One of the most important pieces of context has largely disappeared beneath the headlines: the United States has had extensive military rights in Greenland since 1951.

Under the existing defense agreement with Denmark, American forces already have broad authority to operate military facilities, station personnel, move supplies and conduct military operations in Greenland. The United States once operated more than a dozen installations there and today maintains Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base.

That is why I think some of the celebration surrounding this new agreement needs to be put into perspective.

When I compared what we already possessed under the old arrangement with what has been publicly described in the new one, much of it looked familiar. The United States already had an enormous amount of latitude to defend Greenland and use it as part of the broader defense of North America and NATO.

There are, however, potentially important additions.

According to reporting on the negotiations, the new framework is intended to survive even if Greenland eventually becomes independent from Denmark. It also restricts non-NATO countries from establishing military bases and places tighter limits on sensitive investments by countries such as Russia and China. Depending on the final language, that could give Washington a more durable position in an Arctic region that is becoming increasingly important strategically.

That matters.

But it is a long way from annexation.

Trump’s Negotiating Style on Display

When I traveled to Greenland earlier this year, Trump was openly talking about acquiring the island and repeatedly refusing to rule out force. Those statements infuriated Denmark, alarmed European governments and were deeply unpopular among many Greenlanders.

At the time, I argued that if the United States wanted a larger military footprint or stronger guarantees against Chinese and Russian influence, there were far less destructive ways to accomplish that than threatening a NATO ally.

What we are seeing now looks very much like the end result of Trump’s familiar negotiating method: begin with a demand so extreme that everyone assumes it is impossible, create enormous pressure around it, and then retreat toward an agreement that would previously have looked ambitious.

You can like that method or hate it. I have never thought it was necessary to insult allies in order to negotiate with them. But in this case, Trump appears to have emerged with a strengthened American security position while Denmark retains sovereignty and Greenland retains its right to determine its own future.

That is a meaningful result.

It is simply not the same thing as America taking Greenland.

There is another reason for caution. As I recorded the live discussion, the complete text of the agreement had not yet been publicly released. That makes some of the sweeping claims surrounding it impossible to evaluate definitively. The governments involved have also described the arrangement differently, with Trump emphasizing permanent American control while Danish and Greenlandic officials emphasize sovereignty and shared security.
Until the final text is public, the details matter more than the victory speeches.

The Bigger Story Is Europe

Greenland is only one piece of a much larger strategic shift I watched unfolding during my trip through Europe.

Poland is becoming increasingly important to American military planning. Trump announced that progress is being made toward establishing a new permanent U.S. Army base there, while roughly 10,000 American troops are already stationed in the country on a rotational basis. Poland has spent years asking Washington for a more permanent American military commitment.

I saw that concern firsthand.

While I was in Warsaw, I visited the Polish parliament and interviewed Poland’s defense leadership about the growing security pressure along NATO’s eastern flank. Polish officials are deeply concerned about sabotage, drone incursions and other asymmetric threats connected to Russia, while the alliance is simultaneously watching conventional military activity around Belarus, Kaliningrad and the narrow Suwałki corridor connecting Poland with Lithuania.

The Polish message to Americans was remarkably straightforward: they consider the alliance with the United States central to their security.

That makes the movement we are seeing from Washington particularly interesting.

For much of Trump’s second term, Europeans have questioned whether the United States was moving away from NATO. Now Washington is discussing a permanent base in Poland while simultaneously strengthening its long-term position in Greenland.

Those two developments should be viewed together.

One sits on NATO’s Arctic and North Atlantic flank. The other sits near the alliance’s eastern frontier with Russia and Belarus.

Whatever the rhetoric surrounding NATO has been, the military geography is moving in the opposite direction from American withdrawal.

Washington Turns Up the Pressure on Moscow

There is another important development.

Trump signed a sweeping bipartisan Russia sanctions bill on September 18 after it passed the Senate 86-11 and the House 262-159. The legislation expands sanctions against Russian officials, banks and the so-called shadow fleet used to move Russian energy, while giving the president authority to impose tariffs as high as 100 percent on major importers of Russian oil and natural gas.

That does not guarantee that every available sanction or tariff will be used. As I pointed out during the live broadcast, giving the executive branch authority to apply economic pressure and actually exercising that authority are two different things.

Still, taken together with the discussions over Poland and Greenland, the direction is notable.

The United States is strengthening its ability to operate in the Arctic, discussing a more permanent military presence on NATO’s eastern flank and giving the administration powerful new economic tools against Russia.

That is not the posture of a country abandoning Europe.

Greenland Was Never Just About Greenland

This is why I think the Greenland story is being misunderstood.

The important part is not the idea that America somehow conquered an enormous Arctic island without firing a shot. It didn’t. Greenland remains Greenland, and Denmark remains sovereign.

The important part is that Washington appears to have secured a more durable strategic arrangement in one of the most important pieces of geography on the planet.

Greenland sits between North America, Europe and the Arctic. It matters for missile warning, space operations, air and maritime access and the emerging competition over the High North. Russia possesses an enormous Arctic coastline, while China has spent years seeking economic and strategic access to the region.

Keeping hostile military infrastructure out of Greenland is unquestionably important to American security.

Trump deserves credit if the final agreement strengthens that position while preserving the relationship with Denmark and Greenland.

But we should also be precise about what happened.

America did not take Greenland.

It appears to have strengthened an arrangement that has existed for 75 years, made that relationship more durable and secured additional guarantees against Russian and Chinese influence. That is less dramatic than the rhetoric surrounding the announcement, but strategically it may be far more useful.

And after what I just saw traveling through Poland and along NATO’s eastern frontier, I suspect Greenland will not be the last place where we see the United States quietly strengthening its position as the confrontation with Russia moves into a more dangerous phase.

Armenia: The Last Man is a short documentary by Chuck Holton that transports viewers to a nearly deserted village on Armenia's southern border, just a few miles from Iran. In this hauntingly beautiful setting, one man remains-alone, but not forgotten-bearing witness to the slow fading of his once-thriving community. With striking visuals and firsthand reporting, Chuck Holton tells a moving story of endurance, quiet faith, and the cost of abandonment.

Become a Supporter