Precisely because he is not a great orator, Bennett's speech at the UN was excellent. First of all the cover. Did not slip his tongue (except once imperceptibly) and sounded well in proper English.
He presented orderly, interesting and relevant arguments. Those who make allegations that he has spoken to the public at home probably do not know that this is the purpose of the speeches at the UN. The comparison he made between the corona and social networks as dissolving societies and countries was brilliant. In addition, the very emphasis of the threat posed by social networks is a very important international insight. Very well raised by the Israeli Prime Minister.
There was one internal failure in Bennett's words.
In the same breath, he explained that "wars with our neighbors are not the essence of the State of Israel and of the people of Israel," but "from time to time we rush to the battlefield to defend our country."
It seems to me that for someone who is not Israeli, this argument sounds contradictory.
On the other hand, the slightly different tone towards the Iranian threat, and the almost complete disregard for the Palestinians, were refreshing innovations.
The endless verbal altercation with the Palestinians gives nothing.
At this stage of history, the discourse about them serves them and not us, in part because everything is agreed upon that there is no solution to their matter in the foreseeable future.
"Iran's nuclear program has reached the watershed and so has our tolerance," Bennett contented himself with a restrained threat to Iran.
We have indeed had enough of talk about the Iranians, and in this respect Bennett has also devoted too extensive a chapter to them in his speech.
The phrase that is particularly troubling in this regard is a doubtful appeal to the international community, a doubtful commitment to it, "If we try to think together, if we are serious about stopping this thing, if we use our resourcefulness, we can win." At this point, Bennett should have sharpened that even if there is no international cooperation, Israel will not sit idly by. His remarks that "running a country during an epidemic is also a matter of a delicate balance between all aspects of life. The point of view of doctors is important but they can not lead the national effort" were also reasonable. Ultimately, every country faces these dilemmas and Bennett's position is legitimate. He may not have had to attack the doctors in the briefing that exists after the speech, but the fundamental concept that places the authority and responsibility on the elected echelon, and not on the officials, is correct, it should be extended to other branches of state administration, and in particular to the failed law enforcement system.
Bottom line, Levant had a good performance - and by the way, all the leaders look better outside than at home.
He went to the UN to improve his image in the country and in this respect may have gained some points. The point is that one successful speech will not solve the basic problems. First and foremost, Bennett must stop the habit of lying. He did not tell the truth when he defined his government as an accident Political. "Governments are not born by chance or by mistake. In addition, in the post-speech briefing he again lied when he claimed he did not say" no corona - not interesting. "The prime minister also said the things, and not once.
It's not clear who he's fooling around with in these bluffs.
Leadership does not build leadership.