Netanyahu said 9/11 was very good for Israel. Is this true?
Executive summary
Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to have said words that were widely interpreted as calling the September 11, 2001 attacks “very good” for Israel, then immediately qualified that remark by saying it would “generate immediate sympathy,” and later comments reported in Israeli media said Israel “benefited” because U.S. opinion swung in its favor [1] [2] [3]. Multiple reputable outlets — including Haaretz, Foreign Policy and Democracy Now citing Ma’ariv and contemporaneous reporting — document the statements; independent fact-checking has also noted that these remarks have been seized upon by conspiracy theorists even as direct evidence of foreknowledge or culpability for the attacks does not exist in the reviewed reporting [4] [5] [6].
1. What was actually reported the night of 9/11 — the “very good” line and its immediate edit
The New York Times account quoted by Electronic Intifada records that when asked what the attack meant for U.S.-Israel relations Benjamin Netanyahu replied, “It’s very good,” then quickly added, “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy,” and said the attack would “strengthen the bond between our two peoples” given Israel’s long experience with terror and America’s new trauma [1]. That contemporaneous framing — a blunt initial phrase followed by an immediate qualification about sympathy and U.S.-Israel ties — is the primary source behind later headlines and outrage [1].
2. Later public remarks reported in Israel that framed the attacks as advantageous
In 2008 the Israeli daily Ma’ariv reported Netanyahu told an audience at Bar-Ilan University that Israel had been “benefiting” from the attacks because they “swung American public opinion” in Israel’s favor; that report was carried by Haaretz, Foreign Policy and Democracy Now, which summarized the Ma’ariv quote as saying 9/11 and the U.S. struggle in Iraq aided Israel politically [2] [4] [3]. These later attributions reinforced the perception that Netanyahu publicly linked the geopolitical aftermath of 9/11 to concrete gains for Israeli policy.
3. How media and analysts interpreted those lines — context and spins
Commentators have used those archived remarks to argue different things: critics say the statements reveal a readiness to instrumentalize U.S. suffering to advance Israeli goals and to normalize framing Palestinian resistance as “terror” in the post-9/11 U.S. narrative [1]. Others, and the immediate qualification in the New York Times report, note Netanyahu was making a geopolitical point about sympathy and alliance dynamics rather than celebrating victims; the Economist and Foreign Policy reproduced the Ma’ariv reporting while cautioning about overreach by conspiracy-minded readers [4] [5].
4. Conspiracy, denial and what reliable fact-checkers say
Claims that Netanyahu or Israel had foreknowledge of or direct responsibility for 9/11 are separate and unfounded conspiracies; fact-checkers have debunked viral posts that misuse Netanyahu’s prior writings or later interviews as “proof” he knew the towers would fall, and have flagged such theories as rooted in long-standing antisemitic tropes [6]. The reviewed reporting does not provide evidence supporting those extreme allegations; instead it documents politically charged remarks and subsequent reportage that fed public debate [6] [5].
5. Why the distinction matters — motives, messaging and agendas
Understanding the difference between a reported, provocative political observation and a claim of complicity is essential: outlets such as Ma’ariv, Haaretz and Foreign Policy published the quotations that created the controversy, while advocacy sites and critics used the lines to advance broader narratives about Israel’s conduct and U.S. policy [2] [4] [1]. Readers should note the implicit agendas at play — political actors gain by portraying statements either as cynical realpolitik or as scandalous proof of moral bankruptcy — and rely on the contemporaneous quotes and fact-checks rather than amplified social-media reinterpretations [1] [6].