An unusual scene appeared at the UN General Assembly: When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was preparing to speak, representatives from several countries in the meeting room stood up and left, silent and embarrassing.

Silent exit is more weighty than fierce words. This kind of open diplomatic expression is particularly dazzling on such a big occasion as the United Nations.

It conveys not only dissatisfaction with a country¡¯s leader, but collective questioning and warning of Israel¡¯s current policies.

This conference originally attracted much attention due to the situation in the Middle East. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict escalated again, the fighting in the Gaza Strip did not stop, and civilian casualties continued to increase.

Representatives expressed concern about the situation in their speeches, calling for a political solution and a mitigation of the humanitarian crisis, while Netanyahu¡¯s speech seemed to be completely out of touch with the atmosphere at the scene.

He insisted on emphasizing Israel¡¯s ¡°right to self-defense¡± and the need to combat ¡°military targets,¡± but this statement has been difficult to impress more and more countries concerned about the consequences of the conflict.

The ¡°Retreat¡± is not a coincidence.

This "withdrawal incident" was not a temporary idea, but a coordinated diplomatic action beforehand.

After the meeting, some diplomats privately revealed that this collective exit was an orderly arrangement after communication between many countries, with the purpose of sending a clear signal to Israel without triggering a head-on conflict.

The footage shows that the seats are empty not only for some Arab countries, but also for some countries in Europe and Latin America.This kind of cross-regional collaboration is not common in multilateral events such as the United Nations.

The spark behind this is apparently closely linked to Israel¡¯s actions in Gaza.The Gaza Strip has been subjected to heavy airstrikes and ground cleansing since a new round of conflict broke out in October 2024.

The United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs has repeatedly warned that the medical system in the region is almost paralyzed, the shortage of hydropower is severe, and health conditions are deteriorating sharply.

The move of withdrawal is simple but a heavy expression.It shows that the long-standing diplomatic support that Israel relies on has been loosing, and that countries that had previously remained neutral or restrained have also begun to take action.

Netanyahu is under great pressure, internal and external difficulties

Today's Netanyahu is not in a good situation. Externally, he faces increasingly strong criticism from the international community; Internally, his policy is not monolithic, but is being constrained by the domestic political structure.

Among the coalition governments he relies on, the far-right forces occupy an important position.These political parties have taken a tough stance on any form of compromise, especially in territorial matters and military facts.

To stabilize the regime, Netanyahu must carefully maintain this balance, and once it shows ¡°softening¡± in policy, it could lead to the collapse of the coalition. For this reason, he has always adhered to a set of conditions in the ceasefire negotiations: hostages must be returned first, Hamas must disarm and the Israeli military must not withdraw.

However, the international community does not accept this order. Among the plans put forward by mediators such as the United States and Qatar, they are more inclined to a phased ceasefire and gradual withdrawal of troops, encouraging both sides to build trust and improve humanitarian conditions.

Netanyahu¡¯s insistence has stalled the negotiations and has led to a gradual loss of patience and support at the diplomatic level.

Worse, even the United States has begun to make reservations about Israel¡¯s policy.In early 2025, Trump said in an interview that he did not support the annexation of the West Bank, believing that doing so would ¡°complicate the situation.¡±

This statement is surprising because he has had close ties with Netanyahu in the past and has repeatedly publicly supported Israel¡¯s security policy. Today¡¯s change in attitude has forced Israel to reevaluate its strategic ties with the United States.

U.S. attention is shifting from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific and Russia-Ukraine battles, with significant declines in intervention in the Middle East, in which context Netanyahu can no longer rely entirely on the U.S. backbone as in the past.

His diplomatic room for manoeuvre has been compressed, and his policy choices are in a dilemma.

The Middle East pattern has changed, and Israel is no longer ¡°only¡±

Israel's tough policies in the Middle East in the past were more or less based on geographical advantages and external support. But now, this pattern is beginning to waver.

Although the UAE, Saudi Arabia and other countries have established relations with Israel, after the outbreak of the Israeli conflict in Pakistan, they have issued statements against the annexation of the West Bank. Qatar and Jordan have also publicly criticized Israeli military operations in Gaza, stressing the need to prioritize the protection of civilians.

Iran¡¯s nuclear issue is also re-entered on the international agenda.In mid-2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency¡¯s report on the detection of Iran¡¯s nuclear facilities has sparked controversy, with Israel warning that it will ¡°reserve options for response,¡± but this claim has not been widely supported.

Most countries are more concerned about how to prevent the regional situation from further expanding, rather than listening to one side's unilateral threat of war.

In mid-May, Spanish and Italian warships escorted an international humanitarian rescue fleet to the coast of Gaza.

While this move does not directly put military pressure on Israel, it is symbolic ¨C even traditional allies are now willing to express their positions with practical action.

If Israel continues to unilaterally advance military operations, it may not only fail to achieve strategic results, but may also trigger diplomatic boycotts from more countries. Netanyahu is in the middle of it and has to face a reality: the Middle East is no longer a chessboard on which Israel can control the pace alone.

The ceasefire is difficult to solve, and the humanitarian crisis continues

Qatar has revealed that Hamas has accepted a plan that includes a gradual ceasefire and the opening of humanitarian corridors, but Israel insists that the detainees must be released first.

This logic of ¡°you go first, I go back¡± makes it impossible for negotiations to enter the substantive stage.

And the biggest victims of this conflict are ordinary people. People in Gaza have lost their loved ones, houses and basic living conditions in the war. The United Nations has repeatedly called for the opening of humanitarian channels, but the effect has been limited.

The Israeli side stressed that Hamas treated civilians as ¡°human-meat shields¡± and that the forces were unable to strike accurately.This claim has sparked controversy in some countries, but also exposed the current conflict situation to a structural stagnation.

Even with international mediation, the difficulty of really pushing for a ceasefire remains high. Both sides are reluctant to give up the bottom line, and both fear that once the surrender will be seen as a failure.

Netanyahu's political future hangs in the air

In the streets of Tel Aviv, protests continued.More and more Israelis took to the streets demanding that the government change policies to push for a ceasefire and release hostages.

They ask the government why the war hasn¡¯t ended for a year, why are we still sending people to war, but we don¡¯t see the dawn of hope?

Political pressure in Israel is intertwined with criticism from the international community. For Netanyahu, the support that was originally relied on to maintain a strong image is gradually being consumed by reality.

He can neither compromise easily nor advance unilaterally. The political skills originally used to check and balance all parties are now difficult to play a role.

If the situation continues to be deadlocked, Netanyahu is bound to become the concentrated object of dissatisfaction from all parties. He may not step down immediately, but his political credibility and influence can no longer return to the height of "setting the tone of the Middle East" in the past.

Diplomatic exit, political turn

This ¡°retreat¡± at the United Nations General Assembly is actually a collective expression, not by shouting, not by condemning, but by the simplest action, expressing dissatisfaction with the current situation.

It reveals changes in Israel¡¯s position on the global stage and a signal from the international community that unilateralism is gradually losing patience.

Netanyahu is standing at a breakthrough at the moment, continuing to persist hard, retaining a short-term regime, but losing a long-term position; if a compromise is attempted, it could also encounter a huge rebound in the country.

He may not be the only one responsible, but he is becoming the political price of this conflict.

The global situation is restructuring, and the Middle East is no exception. Future peace may not be driven by the will of one person, but by the common choice of more and more countries.

Source of information:

Xi Jinping quoted diplomatic officials as saying that the withdrawal was a coordinated and consensual diplomatic protest aimed at expressing dissatisfaction with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.