Defiant Netanyahu brands Gaza genocide claims the ‘biggest lie of the century’ and attacks ‘moral cowards’ as scores of delegates walk out during fiery UN speech
Developing story first seen 1 hour ago
Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a combative address to the UN General Assembly in which he branded accusations of genocide in Gaza "the biggest lie of the century" and defended Israel's military operations. His speech was disrupted by a coordinated walkout of dozens of delegates from countries including Spain, Ireland, Egypt and Syria, organised by the Palestinian Mission to protest Israel's conduct in Gaza. Netanyahu responded by condemning departing delegates as "moral cowards" and asserted that Israel's actions were protecting the very nations whose representatives had left the chamber.
The conflict began with Hamas's attack on 7 October 2023, which killed approximately 1,200 people and resulted in 251 hostages being taken. According to Gaza's Health Ministry, at least 73,922 Palestinians have been killed in the subsequent Israeli military offensive, with international organisations generally regarding these casualty figures as credible. A ceasefire agreed between the parties last October ended the heaviest fighting and secured the release of remaining hostages, but subsequent negotiations have stalled, with Israel maintaining control of most of Gaza and continuing military operations whilst Hamas retains territorial control.
- Netanyahu called genocide allegations "the biggest lie" as delegates walked out in protest
- Dozens of nations boycotted his speech to oppose Israel's Gaza operations
- Over 73,000 Palestinians killed since October 2023; ceasefire negotiations deadlocked
New here? Start with this
The story concerns the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which intensified dramatically in October 2023 when the militant group Hamas launched a major attack on Israel that killed around 1,200 people and took 251 hostages. Israel responded with a military campaign in Gaza, where Hamas is based, that has continued for over a year.
Israel's military operations have resulted in significant Palestinian casualties, with Gaza's Health Ministry reporting over 73,000 deaths. International organisations have generally accepted these figures as credible, though some countries and legal experts have accused Israel of genocide, which Israel denies. The scale of destruction and loss of life has made the conflict increasingly divisive on the world stage.
A ceasefire agreement struck last October halted the heaviest fighting and led to the release of remaining hostages, but negotiations for a permanent peace have since stalled. Israel maintains military control of much of Gaza whilst Hamas retains some territorial presence, leaving the territory in a state of ongoing crisis and humanitarian suffering. This has made the conflict a major point of disagreement between nations at international forums.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Israel has a fundamental right to defend itself against the October 7 attack that killed over a thousand civilians and resulted in hostages being taken, and military operations directed at dismantling the threat posed by Hamas are not inherently genocidal merely because they cause civilian casualties, which occur in all conflicts. The characterisation of Israel's actions as genocide represents a political weaponisation of a specific legal term that requires proof of intent to destroy a group as such, not simply the existence of large casualty numbers; defenders argue that proportionality in warfare involves difficult trade-offs, that civilian casualties are tragic but inevitable when an adversary operates from civilian areas, and that Israel's stated purpose is to eliminate a terrorist threat rather than to destroy Palestinians as a people.
The case against
The scale of destruction in Gaza—with casualty figures vastly exceeding those from the precipitating attack, widespread forced displacement, systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, and severe restrictions on humanitarian aid—raises credible questions about whether the response has become disproportionate to any legitimate security objective. International legal experts have documented patterns and rhetoric consistent with serious violations of international humanitarian law, and the disparity in power and casualties, combined with constraints that restrict civilian survival and dignity, suggests an approach that may treat Palestinian lives as having substantially less value; whether or not genocide is legally established, the scale and nature of harm warrants sustained moral scrutiny and independent investigation rather than dismissal.
More coverage