Peace seems an ever-elusive goal amidst the clamor for security and retribution In the Middle East, especially as negotiations currently appear to be a low priority for Israel.

Last Friday, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly, where he, among other things, emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself against its enemies, whom he described as threats to global civilization.

In an interview with the Vaultz News, Mariam Khan, a Researcher and third-year PhD student at Georgia State University with concentration in War and Weapon proliferation in the Middle East, explored the implications of Netanyahu’s speech.

Mariam Khan noted that from one perspective, Netanyahu’s address can be seen as the voice of a victim nation, showing the pain, the wrath, the resolution coming from a leader determined to bring back hostages held by Hamas.

Yet, viewed through another lens, Netanyahu’s speech deflected criticism while justifying continued violence.

“On the contrary, if I view his speech coming from someone who is responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians including women and children, then his speech looks like a revenge story or his excuse of killing thousands of Palestinians or accusing UN of biasness towards Israel.”
Mariam Khan

Giving an overall assessment of the speech, Khan opined that Netanyahu seems more determined than ever in dealing with Hamas, Hezbollah and above all Iran with an iron hand.

She emphasized that he repeatedly asserted Israel would not hesitate to take extreme measures, including war, to ensure its security.

“The October 7 invasion turned out to be 9/11 of Israel and this time it seems that PM Netanyahu has made a resolution to deal with the menace of Hamas for once and for all,” she stated.

Regarding the prospect of an internationally backed ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, Khan believes that Israel currently prioritizes dismantling Hezbollah rather than engaging “some peace talk.”

She cautioned that Israel’s war-centric attitude will likely lead to further instability.

“With the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, Lebanon, the chances are that the conflict can change into war in no time.

“The speech of PM Netanyahu gives the impression that Israel will not hesitate even if the conflict will spread among other states, until Israel will achieve its goal of dismantling the Hamas and Hezbollah networks completely.”
Mariam Khan

Nonetheless, Khan expressed concern that innocent lives are being lost, paying the price of “someone else’s sins.”

A Call For Reform

Commenting on Netanyahu’s claim that the UN’s treatment of Israel constitutes a moral stain and reflects broader anti-Semitic attitudes within international institutions, Khan argued that while the UN was created to maintain global peace, it has frequently failed to prevent conflicts.

She cited the UN’s inability to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its lack of decisive action on issues like the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“Israel is a powerful country and it is not easy for UN to have an influence over it,” she noted.

She added that it is easy for Israel to present itself as a victim on an international platform rather than taking the responsibility of killing thousands of innocent men, women and children of Palestine and Lebanon.

Moreover, Khan stressed that UN needs a large number of reforms to actually held any country accountable for their actions and not only Israel.

“The very structure of UN needs a modification. For instance, the permanent members of Security Council’s veto power are responsible for several unresolved international issues including Israel-Palestine issue. Furthermore, the financial dependency of UN is also making it weak.”
Mariam Khan

“Thus, the list is too long for potential reforms that might held Israel accountable for its actions,” she said.

In conclusion, Netanyahu’s address at the UN presents a powerful, albeit troubling, reflection of the current state of affairs in the region.

Khan’s insightful analysis reveals a dual narrative: one of victimhood and another steeped in vengeance, highlighting the urgent need for reform within international institutions to foster genuine accountability and, ultimately, peace.