How do Israeli and Palestinian leaders' speeches reflect their respective historical narratives?

1. Israeli rhetoric: survival, victimhood and regional threat

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2025 U.N. speech cast Israel’s recent campaigns as defensive measures against an “Iran terror axis” and a multi-front confrontation — framing Israel’s actions as protecting the state and the world while rejecting Palestinian state recognition as a reward for “the most savage terrorists” ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting shows Netanyahu emphasized military success — “hammered” adversaries, degrading Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s programs — and used visual and information tools (QR codes, loudspeaker broadcasts) to amplify a narrative of victory and deterrence ^{[1] [6]}. Domestic speeches and Knesset remarks likewise mix law-and-order commitments (crackdowns on settler violence) with appeals to sovereignty and security, reflecting an Israeli narrative that links trauma (hostage-taking, 7 October attacks) to existential justification for hardline policies ^{[7] [8]}.

2. Palestinian rhetoric: catastrophe, rights and international appeal

Mahmoud Abbas’s addresses foreground humanitarian suffering and displacement in Gaza, catalogue civilian casualties, call for full UN recognition and press for a demilitarized Palestinian state under international supervision, and ask other countries to recognize Palestinian statehood — positioning Palestinians as victims of a disproportionate military campaign and appealing to global law and morality ^{[3] [4]}. U.N. and human-rights reporting cited by Palestinian spokespeople — including grim casualty tallies and displacement figures — are used to frame Israel as the aggressor and to demand international intervention, transitional governance for Gaza, and protection of Palestinian rights ^{[3] [9]}.

3. How the two narratives use history differently

Israeli speeches invoke historical narratives of Jewish survival, self-defense and national rebirth to legitimize security-first policies; Netanyahu and allies repeatedly link recent trauma to older threats to justify denying or delaying Palestinian statehood ^{[1] [10]}. Palestinian leaders draw on narratives of the Nakba, occupation and dispossession to portray the present as a continuation of long-term injustice and to demand recognition, return and rights — a historical framing that stresses expulsions, refugeehood and occupation ^{[9] [11]}. Academic and educational sources show these are parallel, deeply entrenched national narratives that shape political language and public expectations ^{[12] [13]}.

4. Rhetorical tactics: audiences, symbols and international law

Both sides tailor speeches to distinct audiences. Netanyahu targeted international capitals and domestic constituencies — leveraging claims of shared Western interest against Iranian proxies and using strong visuals and broadcast tactics (loudspeakers into Gaza) to dramatize sovereignty and security concerns ^{[6] [14]}. Abbas targeted the UN and states considering recognition, invoking casualty figures, displacement and calls for membership to generate legal and diplomatic momentum ^[3]. Both invoke international law selectively: Palestinians emphasize UN resolutions and humanitarian law; Israeli leaders emphasize security imperatives and accuse others of rewarding terror ^{[1] [15]}.

5. Points of overlap, dispute and reporting limits

There is overlap where both sides appeal to victims and justice — each asserts existential claims and historical grievances — yet reporting shows deep disagreement over causes, culpability and proposed remedies ^{[16] [17]}. Independent actors (EU, UN, Human Rights Watch) criticize civilian harm and call for restraint, offering a third-language focused on humanitarian law and accountability that challenges both leaders’ self-justifying frames ^{[15] [4]}. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive catalogue of every leader’s speeches across all forums; this analysis relies on major addresses covered in the provided reporting ^{[5] [1] [3]}.

6. Why rhetoric matters for policy and peace prospects

Speech narratives shape what each side will accept: Israeli emphasis on security and non-acceptance of a Palestinian state constrains negotiable options, while Palestinian insistence on recognition and rights raises international pressure but not necessarily on-the-ground control ^{[1] [3]}. Scholars and third-party reports indicate that without mutual recognition of narratives or mechanisms to bridge them, rhetoric hardens positions and impedes compromise — a dynamic visible in both UN debates and domestic politics ^{[13] [18]}.