Many years ago, then-Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Chaim Herzog, who would go on to become president, stepped onto the podium at the U.N. General Assembly. He gave an assertive speech, which would be regarded as a master class in rhetoric, in which he condemned the disgraceful U.N. resolution that compared Zionism to racism. Herzog was not content to moralize. After consulting with the Israeli delegation, he decided to take a stand. On Nov. 10, 1975, he stood up and tore apart a copy of the resolution in front of a room full of representatives of the nations of the world in prowwww.
The protest was broadcast on TV worldwide. Even today, the image is etched not only into the consciousness of many Israelis; it will apparently be featured in every documentary film about the U.N. There is no doubt that this act contributed to the eventual cancellation of the resolution that tried to slander Zionism and Israel.
Today, I am aghast to think about how the Israeli media could have responded to Herzog's tearing up the resolution. Headlines calling it "theater," "show," "insulting the international organization," "What, we didn't know that the U.N. equated Zionism to racism?" and even "Did tearing up the resolution was anything new?"
I can easily name columnists, hosts and pundits in the broadcast media today who would have mocked the ambassador. Or rather, would have mocked him on the condition that his name was Benjamin Netanyahu rather than Chaim Herzog. Yes, Netanyahu the statesman has sometimes been an actor or a director, standing in front of a shelf of folders after definitively uncloaking the Iranian nuclear archive.
In an era in which almost no detail escapes the eyes and ears of the world, diplomacy may – and possibly must – employ visual aids and dramatic gestures that attract attention. Because what do we remember from Herzog's appearance at the U.N. – a single sentence from his speech, or the act of tearing up the resolution? The answer is clear. Because the act was filmed, many remember that the U.N. once equated Zionism with racism.
Today, the footage of the binders and the English headline "Iran lied!" turned the attention of millions of viewers to the matter of the failed Iranian nuclear deal. Even the debate about whether the binders contain an unequivocal answer to the question of whether Iran violated the deal after it was signed – brought the need to find a solution to the nuclear issue into sharp relief.
Netanyahu has already cooked up some unconventional ways of bringing attention to the Iranian nuclear issue. This is what he did when he "sneaked" into Congress to alert public opinion, particularly that of U.S. lawmakers, to the problem. Or the "ticking bomb" illustration, which provided visual evidence of Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb. Then, too, Netanyahu was scolded by some in the media and the subject of dire predictions about how it might affect relations with the U.S. and then-President Barack Obama. These predictions turned out to be completely wrong.
Luckily, Donald Trump was elected president. Yes, when it comes to warning the world about the Iranian nuclear risk, the prime minister is allowed to "sneak" into Congress, even behind Obama's back. And this is effectively what he did in when he pulled back the curtain on the shelf of binders and put the Iranian nuclear danger back in international headlines.
