On 26 September 2025 at the United Nations General Assembly, delegates began to walk out of the hall as the next speaker took the podium. The Washington Post reported more than 100 delegates from 50 countries chose to leave, a clear sign of disrespect and disinterest towards their fellow member state – who was none other than Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Let’s set the stage leading up to this apparent monumental diplomatic faux pas. This was the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, which officially concluded on 29 September 2025. This annual gathering is meant to provide a platform for all member states of the United Nations to discuss the full spectrum of international issues under the Charter of the United Nations, and even had a theme for the general debate: “Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights”.
In walking out, the delegates missed out on Netanyahu criticising world leaders for believing in “biased media, radical Islamist constituencies and anti-semitic mobs.” He vowed to “finish the job” of eliminating Hamas in Gaza, in addition to touting his operations against Iran and its proxies in the Middle East. As more countries – including France, Britain, and Canada – announced their recognition of the State of Palestine, Netanyahu simply called them “insane” for doing so, shutting down any possibility of Israel considering the same. He also denied any waging of genocide in Gaza, calling any claims of Israel doing so “baseless”, and it merely being media buying into Hamas propaganda.
We can say that Netanyahu is free to speak his mind, and have his points debated afterwards. However, when you take into consideration the fact that he has a warrant of arrest on him from the International Criminal Court (ICC), it becomes less of asking why countries are willing to burn diplomatic bridges and more, “Why is he able to speak at the United Nations to begin with?” By the ICC’s own guidelines of contact, there should be no meetings, ceremonial or otherwise; no courtesy calls, receptions; and contact to be made through a liaison if business is to be conducted, not directly with the person of interest named in the warrant.
With that context, the delegates who staged the walk out were protesting this flagrant double-standard in the manner that they could: refusing to give Netanyahu any more attention than he deserved at the UN and the global stage.
There has long been discontent over the superpowers’ apparent lack of action and empathy regarding the Israel-Gaza conflict, even as the grassroots populace take to the streets to protest, and often, get arrested for doing so. While Netanyahu remains adamant to continue striking Palestinians and neighbouring territories in the name of flushing out militants, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, purportedly has a “deal on Gaza”, leaving the public to speculate on the possibility of a ceasefire.
Whether the delegates were right or wrong to walk out on Netanyahu is a small matter in the large scale of things. If a leader can elect to turn a blind eye to internationally agreed protocol, then how can people believe that justice and due process will be meted out? As Finnish President, Alexander Stubb, said in his address, “No single state should have veto power. And, if a member of the Security Council violates the UN Charter, its voting rights should be suspended,” as he called out the failures of the UN in “its central promise of delivering peace and stability”. The United States had vetoed, for the sixth time, a UN Security Council resolution demanding unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza. How much longer must this go on?
If it takes a single walk out to get the ball rolling on change, then so be it.
Main image credit: Reuters/Caitlin Ochs
