Israel often imposes internet blackouts in Gaza so it could also be likely that word just hasn’t made it out.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-hit-by-teleco...

When you’re weak you have you act strong.

Reminds me how at some point the U.S. was so strong that it didn’t even have to show up to dick swinging contests anymore. No military parades and the like, which feels antiquated and kind of embarrassing when you see the Russians or North Koreans doing it.

Though the Americans are into military parades again… hmmm…

I think the boldness is a combination of 1) marketing to governments and organizations around the world and 2) knowing there will be no consequences either domestic or international for what they do.

You probably took your security for granted? I'm being perfectly serious, RCEs like this are table-stakes for modern cyber-warfare.

both

1. israel cyberarmy is just better

2. they dont need to hide it anymore (where US and china do it may gain unnecessary publicity)

The later. While I applaud Israel capabilities the are not unique. USA and china has more mony, talent and access to the hardware/software that is actually used to build the networks

In the verbally given version of the speech that isn't shortened to a tweet (https://www.nbcnews.com/video/shorts/israel-pm-says-they-use...) this is explicitly directed "to the jailers of our hostages", and in that context, it seems pretty reasonable.

[flagged]

[flagged]

From the AP:

> The prime minister’s office also claimed that the Israeli army had taken over mobile phones in Gaza to broadcast his message, though AP journalists inside Gaza saw no immediate evidence of Netanyahu’s speech being broadcast on phones there.

If true...

I think it is more likely that the Israeli government would have abused Gaza's wireless emergency alert system to send a link to a live stream to every cell phone. AFAIK, emergency alert systems are limited to text messages but smartphones will recognise URLs to allow users to tap to open them.

But a user would have needed to actively tap on the link to open the stream.

Is it really unrealistic though? Considering Israeli Pegasus spyware alone? Honest question.

Or possibly they hacked (or stole credentials for) the switch/tower gear in order to send those calls/messages.

In the UK we recently had a test of the emergency alert system. Most people had an alarm and a message on screen, with phones locked. There were a few incidents of motorists ending up in road traffic accidents in the immediate aftermath, and some phones reportedly spoke the announcement rather than just beep loudly.

Since the 'beep' is just an audio file, my hunch is that some A/B testing was going on, with most people getting the 'beep' and some getting the message read out.

I imagine that broadcast capability is fully built in, so that mobile phones can replace what we had in the olden days when the government could take over the TV and radio to broadcast whatever they thought was important. I can't remember the last time that the U.S. President spoke to the people in this way, but it used to be fairly common.

I don't think that calling every phone is plausible. In a competitive telecoms market, no provider would build that out. Instead they would keep capacity just above what they know is needed on a daily basis.

Basically a modern version of leaflets.

With all that being said, I'd consider that a gross misuse of emergency functionality.

> too much Tom Clancy.

Isn't this is the nation that planted explosives into pagers? I think they're the ones reading too much Clancy.

> so can one of the most technologically-proficient governments.

How would you feel if China did this to your nation? Would you marvel at their proficiency or perhaps focus on the complete lack of diplomacy it displays?

> You guys read too much Tom Clancy.

Seymour Hersh, actually.

He's the head of state of a member country. Afaik, all member countries have a slot to give a speech at the general assembly. There's probably a slot for observer states and other acknowledged non-member states as well.

I don't see why Putin would be prohibited from making a speech in the time alloted for speeches either? He's the head of state of a member country as well. And it's one of the permanent members of the security council, so among equal peers, it's more equal. Russia's slot is currently listed as Saturday morning [1], I don't know who will speak.

[1] https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2025/09/15/un-genera...

> rather like allowing Putin to do so

Putin has treaty rights to attend the General Assembly, same as Netanyahu. Neither are under legal threat in the U.S. as we never signed the Rome Statute that established the ICC.

Mamdani has said once elected he will arrest Netanyahu if he returns.