Introduction
The United Nations meeting in New York formed the context of one of the most discussed and most discussed political speeches of the year. Former U.S. President Donald Trump who had a direct and straightforward speech style. Used his stage time to deliver a clear cut and blunt message.
In a speech that gained both interest and disapproval, Trump backs Israel, rejects Palestinian state in UN speech. While also criticizing the United Nations, rules about people moving to different countries, and how Europe deals with Russia.
This event not only showed Trump’s usual ideas about foreign policy. But also made clear the big gap between the United States when he was in charge and much of the world. His speech was full of stories. Strong criticisms, and a refusal to agree to compromises through talking.
Trump’s Criticism of the United Nations
From the start, Trump made it clear he wanted to weaken the reputation of the United Nations itself. He called the organization too big, dishonest, and not effective. The General Assembly was told that the U.N., even with its good possibilities, had regularly failed to get real results.
To explain what he meant, Trump told stories of bad management, like broken escalators and costly but faulty updates at the U.N. headquarters. These are little but well utilized to produce a wider image of inefficiency in the global group.
According to him, projects and plans that had not achieved. What they were supposed to do had wasted billions of dollars. For Trump, the U.N. had changed into a system focused on image rather than real answers.
Focus on Migration
Trump then turned to one of the topics he always talked about in politics: migration. He said that the United Nations was strongly supporting and funding what he called an “invasion. Of Western countries. He said that the U.N. was giving housing, travel, and help to people trying to enter the United States.
His words accused the U.N. of hurting the power of individual. Countries by putting being politically correct and global ideas ahead of the safety of countries. Trump said that Western countries were losing their cultural identity because people were moving in without control.
This view matched what his government did, where limiting who could come into the country. Building a wall on the border, and efforts to send people back were important issues. His statements at the U.N. Made stronger his belief that a country’s identity was at risk unless borders were kept secure.
Read Also Jimmy Kimmel Show Return
Trump’s Rejection of a Palestinian State
The most important part of Trump’s speech was what he said about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. He said that recognizing a Palestinian state on its own was not okay. He stressed that rewarding Hamas or other fighting groups with their own country would cause more fighting.
By saying this clearly, Trump backs Israel, rejects Palestinian state in UN speech, making U.S. policy even more in line with Israel. This way of thinking separated him from leaders of the U.K., France, Canada, and other countries that had recently said they were open to recognizing Palestine.
Trump saying no to a Palestinian country showed he agreed with what the Israeli government wanted and went against what the U.S. had said for many years about supporting a country for both sides. What he said made it clear that the U.S. was on one side of the issue, making it hard to talk and find solutions.
Response from the UN Secretary-General
Just before Trump spoke, the UN Secretary-General gave a speech that said the opposite of what Trump believed. The Secretary-General said that the Hamas attacks on October 7 were wrong, but he also said that Israel was unfairly punishing all Palestinians. He said that having a country was not something to be given, but something they deserved, saying that recognizing Palestine was needed for peace that would last.
This response showed how different Trump and the people in charge of the United Nations were. The Secretary-General talked about helping people and following the rules of the world, while Trump cared more about who he was friends with and speaking proudly about his own country.
Reaction from Global Allies
The speech by Trump soon attracted the reaction of nations which are friendly to the U.S. European nations such as France, United Kingdom and Canada, indicated that they desire Palestine to be a nation and they did not concur with Trump. This dispute indicated the issues related to the relations between the U.S. And its longtime friends.
While the U.S. under Trump wanted to be closer to Israel, European friends were starting to support Palestine being recognized as a country. This disagreement showed that Trump putting America first often went against working together with other countries. To many leaders, Trump saying no to a Palestinian country meant he did not want to have real talks. It appeared as an initiative that was likely to aggravate the problem rather than assist its resolution.
Criticism of Russia and European Energy Dependence
Besides the Middle East, Trump talked about another issue causing problems around the world: the war in Ukraine. He said that European countries were helping Russia by still buying oil and gas from them. He said that Europe needing Russia for energy was paying for the war that was making them unsafe. Trump criticized countries in NATO for not doing more against Russia.
He said that European friends were making themselves weaker by depending on Russia. He promised to meet with leaders from Europe and the Middle East to talk about both needing energy from other places and the fighting in Gaza. These comments showed that Trump was annoyed with friends who he thought were not doing enough. They also showed that he often pushed NATO countries to give more money for everyone’s safety.
Use of Anecdotes and Delivery Issues
Trump did not give his speech very well. He complained that the screens and escalators at the U.N. building were broken. Although these things may be considered small, he used them to tell that the U.N. was not doing its job well.
These anecdotes demonstrated the manner in which Trump enjoys chattering: combining his personal irritation with what he wishes to comment about politics. People who support him liked that he seemed like them. People who don’t like him thought he was not taking serious world problems seriously.
Even though he had problems giving the speech, Trump still spoke strongly, making sure that his words would be all over the news.
Broader Implications of Trump’s Speech
The speech will have big effects for a long time. Trump saying he doesn’t agree with recognizing Palestine showed he supports Israel, but it could make other countries not want to work with him. He opposed the migration of people to other nations and U.N., which demonstrates his prioritization of his domestic nation over other countries that usually desire to establish cooperation.
The speech demonstrated that Trump desires to upset things and do what the rest of the world considers normal. It also demonstrated that it was not good to remain out of other countries. Failing to collaborate closely with other nations could also have complicated the ability of the West to concur on how to manage issues globally by Trump.
Conclusion
The speech to all the countries was a very important part of what Trump did with other countries. In a speech that was strong and went against others, Trump supports Israel, says no to Palestine being a country in the UN speech, talks badly about how people move, attacks how Europe gets energy, and asks if the United Nations is helpful.
His words showed what he always says: he supports Israel, doesn’t trust groups from other countries, and talks badly about countries that he thinks don’t do enough. Though the speech instilled confidence in his fans and made them feel powerful, it also demonstrated that his government was not connected with the rest of the world.
Ultimately, the speech will be remembered to further make people divided, rather than collaborate. It revealed how the U.S. approach to other nations was transformed by Trump and his approach to put America first, which went against the principles of negotiations with other nations.