They are quick to give you a long list of countries whose delegates walked out of the United Nations General Assembly when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mounted the podium.
But there is another side of the story that deserves attention: the countries whose representatives remained in their seats.
The way some reports and social-media posts present the episode can make it appear as though Netanyahu walked into an almost completely deserted chamber and addressed an “empty room.” That is not an accurate description of what happened.
On Thursday, September 24, 2026, dozens of delegations walked out as Netanyahu approached the podium during his address to the 81st UN General Assembly. The walkout was encouraged by the Palestinian Mission to the UN and was widely reported as a protest against Israel’s military actions and its policies toward Palestinians.
The chamber was certainly dramatically emptier after the walkout. But delegates from numerous countries remained inside, and some were visibly supportive of the Israeli prime minister. Netanyahu himself acknowledged those who stayed, while members of the Israeli delegation applauded and chanted during parts of the session.
That is why the conversation should not simply be about who walked out. It should also ask: Who stayed?
Among the countries whose representatives were reported or visibly identified as remaining in the chamber were the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Australia, Japan, India, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Argentina, Paraguay, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, among others. Contemporary reporting also specifically identified the UAE and Bahrain as delegations that remained seated.
The presence of these countries is significant because they represent different regions, diplomatic relationships and foreign-policy positions. Remaining in the chamber does not necessarily mean that every government present endorsed everything Netanyahu said. Likewise, walking out does not necessarily mean every member of a departing delegation agreed on every aspect of Palestinian or Israeli policy.
Diplomatic attendance is more complicated than a simple “for Israel” or “against Israel” calculation.
And that is precisely why selective reporting can create a misleading impression.
The walkout was real. It was substantial. It produced one of the most visually striking moments of this year's General Assembly. But it is equally true that a significant number of delegations remained and listened to Netanyahu's address.
For Nigerians, there is another point worth noting.
Nigeria was among the African delegations represented at this year's General Assembly, and Nigerian representatives were present during the proceedings. The decision of individual diplomats to remain in a chamber should not automatically be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of every Israeli government position. Nevertheless, Nigerians are entitled to examine their government's diplomatic posture and ask what message it is communicating internationally.
So, while some headlines may focus heavily on the countries that walked away, the fuller picture is this:
Yes, many delegates walked out. But no, Netanyahu was not literally speaking to an empty United Nations chamber.
The images tell only part of the story.
There were empty seats. There were departing delegations. There were also governments that stayed, watched, listened and, in some cases, openly demonstrated support.
That distinction matters.
As for the comparison with Nigeria's foreign policy during the Buhari administration, that is a political interpretation rather than something that can be established simply from the 2026 UN walkout. It is therefore better to debate Nigeria's past diplomatic positions on their documented record rather than describe an entire government or country with a blanket ideological label.
For now, the clearest fact from the UN footage and reporting is simple:
The walkout happened — but so did the staying. And both sides of the picture deserve to be reported.
0 Comments