Not that he ever could have done so. But Mamdani’s bluster was that he would arrest Netanyahu if he dared to set foot in the city.

Here’s an excerpt from Netanyahu’s speech that I think encapsulates the irony of the situation:

Devastating Iran’s nuclear facilities was hard. It was very hard to do. But for me, it was one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make as prime minister. Because if we hadn’t done it, we’d all be dead.
Now, you want to hear the ultimate irony?

In defending itself, Israel is also defending many of the countries whose delegates just left this hall!

In fact, I want you to know that many of their leaders even thank us privately for taking out Iran’s nukes.

There is a great deal of charade in the Middle East, and a great deal of destructive maneuvering at the UN. Netanyahu is telling the truth, but it won’t matter.

The UN has been an anti-Israel force for a long long time, which is also ironic because it was a UN vote that helped establish the modern state of Israel. For the history-challenged (which is an ever-increasing number of people), see this:

Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end.

Other ironies: it is Hamas and other terrorist groups who would dearly love to genocide the Israelis/Jews if they could, and 10/7 was a step in that direction with greater ambitions than it achieved. It is Israel that has neither wanted to commit genocide nor taken steps to do so, and yet it is Israel that is widely accused of genocide. It is Hamas and other terrorists groups that purposely kill babies and other children in Israel as well as purposely putting their own children in harm’s way, whereas Israel tries not to kill children but sometimes does so as collateral damage, and yet it is the Israelis who are accused of targeting children.

The latest salvo in the “child-killer” rhetoric is this pernicious propaganda film:

Israel’s culture minister has called for the Oscar-winning Israeli co-directors of Naza, a documentary that accuses the Israeli army of mass civilian killings in Gaza, to be stripped of their citizenship over “treason against the state”.

Named for the Hebrew military acronym for collateral damage, the film speaks to 24 unidentified Israeli military and intelligence officers who outlined the AI-powered targeting systems used by the Israeli army to bombard Gaza in the war triggered by the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023.

Twenty-four unidentified Israeli military and intelligence officers. Hey, can I be one, too?

More:

How does a film reliant on masked “witnesses,” unverified testimonials, and zero cross-examination command instant international acclaim?

You know how – it fits the preferred agenda of the Israel-haters and Jew-haters and Netanyahu-haters around the world, and in particular the left but hardly limited to it.

Co-director Yuval Abraham claimed the film was created to “spark a public discussion about the Israeli government’s actions.” But if the genuine goal is to spark a meaningful, honest conversation, you must present full context and transparent information. You must give people the complete picture so they can make an informed judgment. True dialogue requires context, nuanced expert analysis, and an honest acknowledgment of the existential security threats Israel faces. …

Much of the Western public exhibits an insatiable appetite for any narrative that delegitimizes or criminalizes the State of Israel, or its IDF. We see this cycle play out constantly: initial, unverified claims or inflated casualty figures following an Israeli strike make front-page headlines and send thousands into the streets in protest. Days later, when independent reviews reveal the original reporting was false or misleading, the retraction is buried in quiet, footnote-sized corrections that nobody reads. The damage is already done. Without verifiable identity, specific context, or cross-examination, some audiences trust and applaud the authors’ narrative on faith.

None of this is to claim that any military, including the IDF, operates flawlessly or above critique. Evaluating military ethics in asymmetric warfare is agonizingly complex.

How do you calculate proportionality when fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself behind its own civilian population? When terrorist cells operate out of homes, schools, and hospitals, using human shields, every military response carries tragic potential costs. But judging operations strictly by their heartbreaking outcomes—while entirely ignoring the explicit strategy of human shielding that causes them—presents a fundamentally distorted view of reality.

Distorting reality in the interests of a narrative is the point. What’s more, it has been very very successful.