By:Qurat ul ain Ali Khawaja
Published By: ANI News Agency
“Indeed, silence speaks louder than a speech.”
The recent scene at the United Nations General Assembly was one of those rare diplomatic moments when the absence of people became more powerful than their presence. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approached the podium on September 24, delegations from nearly 70 countries reportedly walked out or left their seats vacant, leaving large sections of the General Assembly hall empty.
For me, the most powerful message at the UN was not delivered from the podium, it came from the delegations that chose to leave it behind. This was not merely a political spectacle. It was a striking humanitarian statement. At a time when international diplomacy is often reduced to carefully worded statements, these countries chose a much more visible form of protest. Their message was simple: their presence in that moment should not be interpreted as acceptance of what they regard as unacceptable suffering and policies affecting Palestinians.
Among the countries reported to have participated were Türkiye, Palestine, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, South Africa, Brazil and several others. The geographical diversity of the walkout is important. It was not confined to the Arab world or even to Muslim-majority countries; delegations from Africa, Asia and Latin America also participated.
Pakistan was among the countries reported to have walked out, and this deserves appreciation. Pakistan has consistently supported Palestinian self-determination and statehood, and its participation was also consistent with its broader diplomatic position on Gaza. This was not the first time Pakistan's delegation had taken such a position: Pakistani and other Arab and Islamic delegations also walked out during Netanyahu's 2024 UNGA address.
What makes the latest episode even more striking is what happened only two days earlier.
When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addressed the General Assembly on September 22, he placed Gaza, Palestinian statehood and the credibility of the international system at the heart of his intervention. He called for wider recognition of Palestine and questioned whether the existing UN Security Council structure can adequately represent the interests of the wider international community. During Erdoğan's address, the Israeli delegation walked out. Then, when Netanyahu took the podium, the scene was almost reversed:
Erdoğan spoke about Gaza Israel walked out.
Netanyahu spoke and nearly 70 delegations walked out.
That contrast deserves more than a passing headline. I believe Erdoğan deserves recognition for keeping the humanitarian dimension of Palestine firmly on the international agenda. Whatever one's broader political assessment of Türkiye or its leadership, bringing civilian suffering, Palestinian statehood and the credibility of multilateral institutions into the centre of the UN debate is significant. The Israeli delegation's departure during Erdoğan's speech also demonstrated something important: diplomatic walkouts are themselves a language of protest. Israel used that language when it rejected Erdoğan's message. Other governments subsequently used the same language to register their opposition to Netanyahu's position.
This is why the countries that walked out deserve appreciation not because walking out automatically solves anything, but because they made their disagreement visible.
A diplomatic statement can be forgotten. An empty UN chamber becomes an image that travels around the world.
And yet, the real humanitarian test begins after the cameras disappear. A walkout cannot stop a war. It cannot feed a displaced child. It cannot rebuild a hospital. It cannot establish a ceasefire or create a Palestinian state. The value of the gesture ultimately depends on what follows it.
Will these countries continue diplomatic pressure? Will more governments recognise Palestine? Will humanitarian assistance become stronger and more effective? Will states support accountability mechanisms and civilian protection? Will they use their diplomatic and economic relationships to push for concrete changes? These are the questions that will determine whether this extraordinary moment becomes a turning point or simply another powerful photograph.
There is another side of the picture that also deserves attention.
Several countries remained in the chamber, including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Australia, Italy, the UAE, Bahrain and others.
Their presence should not automatically be described as support for Netanyahu. Diplomacy is more complicated than that. A government can remain in the room to listen, engage or preserve diplomatic channels while disagreeing with policies of the speaker. But their presence does raise a legitimate humanitarian question: when governments publicly express concern about civilian suffering, how should that concern ultimately be measured by statements, by diplomatic presence, or by concrete policy?
That is the uncomfortable question facing every government, not only those that remained seated.
Humanitarian principles cannot depend solely on which side of the chamber a country occupies. They must be reflected in votes, humanitarian assistance, diplomatic pressure, recognition policies, legal commitments and the willingness to protect civilians regardless of political alliances. The recent walkout is also significant because it is part of a growing pattern. Netanyahu faced another major walkout during his 2025 UN General Assembly appearance, and delegates also walked out during his 2024 address. Walkouts have occurred during other controversial UN speeches as well, including speeches involving Iran and Russia.
So this is not unprecedented in UN history. But the repetition of large-scale departures during Netanyahu's recent appearances is nevertheless significant. It suggests that the diplomatic disagreement surrounding Israel's conduct in Gaza is not disappearing from the international agenda.
The bigger question now is whether symbolic diplomatic isolation will eventually become policy-level pressure.
That transition is crucial.
International politics rarely changes because of one speech. It changes through accumulation: one statement, one vote, one recognition, one legal proceeding, one diplomatic decision, followed by another.
Over time, those decisions can alter the strategic environment.
This is where the future of the current moment lies. If countries that walked out maintain their positions beyond the UN chamber, coordinate humanitarian initiatives, support Palestinian statehood and continue demanding compliance with international law, the September 2026 walkout could become part of a much broader diplomatic shift. If they return home and nothing changes, the gesture will remain largely symbolic.
The empty seats, therefore, are not the conclusion. They are a question. A question to governments that walked out: What will you do next?
A question to governments that remained: What does your humanitarian position mean in practice? And a question to the international system itself: Can the United Nations continue to speak about human rights, civilian protection and international law while struggling to translate those principles into effective action? Perhaps that is the deeper significance of Erdoğan's intervention. His message was not only about Palestine. It was also about the credibility of a multilateral system that claims to represent the international community. The fact that his speech prompted an Israeli walkout, followed two days later by a much larger multinational walkout during Netanyahu's address, created an extraordinary diplomatic symmetry.
For the countries that left, I would offer appreciation but also a challenge. Do not let the walkout be the end of your humanitarian statement. Let it be the beginning of action.
Because children in Gaza will not experience diplomacy through photographs. They will experience it through whether food reaches them, whether hospitals function, whether civilians are protected, whether displacement ends and whether their future is determined through a credible political process. The world has seen the empty seats. Now it must watch the decisions that follow. Because a walkout can send a message. A united diplomatic position can create pressure. But only sustained action can turn humanitarian concern into change.
