Netanyahu’s speech to the Israeli public was 20 minutes of nothing - comment

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a brilliant opportunity to actually say something about the war in a 20-minute address on Wednesday night.

He could have said, discussing recent high-level assassinations, that the government perceives a definitive success in the war and now is the time to move forward in ceasefire negotiations.

Instead, he delivered a speech filled with vague warnings and missed chances, leaving behind the at-this-point expected disappointment every time Netanyahu speaks to the Israeli public.

Netanyahu could have seized the moment to declare a decisive victory in the ongoing conflict. This would have bolstered national morale, provided a clear sense of direction, and made it clear that Israel was ready to end the suffering on all sides.

He could have directly addressed the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, allegedly at the hands of Israel. Most people have assumed as much already, like the assassination of Mohammed Deif a couple of weeks prior, and finally confirmed on Thursday. The IDF stated that its July 13 attack against Hamas military leader Deif had succeeded in killing him.

As such, we have no confirmation that it was Israel who took Haniyeh out on Wednesday. All we know is that he was assassinated in Tehran early on Wednesday morning by a missile that struck him “directly,” according to Hamas deputy chief in Gaza Khalil Al-Hayya.

The explosive device reportedly was secretly smuggled into his Tehran guesthouse and killed him mere hours after he attended a swearing-in ceremony for the country’s new president.

No mention of the assassination in the speech 

Everyone blamed Israel for the attack, or rather, accredited it to us. However, Netanyahu – despite speaking mere hours after the assassination – did not confirm. He chose to rehash familiar talking points and take credit for a series of disparate military achievements, without providing a cohesive narrative, while strategically maneuvering around points of conflict surrounding himself.

For example, he loved speaking about our “Druze brothers” – members of the Druze community in Majdal Shams who experienced a horrific massacre on Saturday when a Hezbollah rocket killed 12 children – and talked all about going to visit and speak with them. He conveniently left out being booed the entire way.

While Netanyahu did mention specific military actions, such as the elimination of Deif and the attack on the Houthis, he failed to weave these into a larger, more meaningful context. His refusal to take responsibility for Haniyeh’s assassination, despite widespread belief in Israel’s involvement, further muddied the waters.

While important, the prime minister’s emphasis on the existential nature of the conflict with Iran and its proxies offered little new information or strategic direction.

His reiteration of the “three H’s” – Hamas, Houthis, and Hezbollah – seemed more like a rehashing of old talking points than a fresh perspective on the evolving situation. In fact, it felt a little as if he recognized the linguistic pattern at the exact moment he pronounced it.

Netanyahu’s failure to provide substantial new information or announce any significant developments is particularly glaring, given the current geopolitical climate. With Iran threatening retaliation and the US signaling its readiness to defend Israel, citizens deserve more than vague assurances and recycled rhetoric. It’s pathetic.

Does the government have a strategy? 

The prime minister’s decision to focus on generalities rather than specifics raises questions that have already been on the public’s mind: Does the government have any strategic direction? Given its obvious struggles with effectively communicating with the public, it is seriously hard to say.

Clear and decisive leadership is crucial in times of conflict and uncertainty. Unfortunately, Netanyahu’s speech provided neither. He missed an opportunity to inform, reassure, and lead, instead choosing to take personal credit for broad decisions and leaving nuanced clues between the lines.

 Instead of offering a clear vision for the future or addressing pressing concerns, Netanyahu opted for a safe, noncommittal approach that ultimately has very little substance.

As Israel navigates turbulent times, its leaders – Netanyahu in particular – must do more than merely reiterate their resolve. They must provide concrete plans, transparent communication, and decisive action.

Netanyahu’s speech fell far short of these essential leadership qualities, displaying once more just how unfit he is to lead the country, and leaving the Israeli public with more questions than answers at a time when clarity is desperately needed.

The writer is deputy editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.