Video/Transcript: "Will Israel Attack Iran?"

Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Backs Himself into a Corner
The Latest from Iran (30 September): Confusion

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Monday, Michael Rubin, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, and Bob Baer, a former CIA officer and intelligence columnist for Time magazine, were the guests on MSNBC's Hardball. Both guests were pessimistic on the success of diplomatic engagement with Tehran, and both agreed that Israel would sooner or later attack Iran. They asserted that, while Israel can carry out the operation on its own, the US should discourage this since Washington cannot afford chaos in the region.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCic7ZL2efA[/youtube]
Unsurprisingly, Rubin and Baer portrayed Iran as a country ruled by "irrational" people who can even "commit suicide" by blocking the energy corridor through the Straits of Hormuz after an Israeli operation, just to ensure "the destruction of the Zionist regime". Iran's only motive for  obtaining a nuclear weapon is to attack rather than deter or balance Israel.

Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Michael Rubin, is it plausible that within the next year or so, Israel will strike at those nuclear facilities in Iran?

MICHAEL RUBIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Absolutely plausible. It is. They view Iran and the Iranian nuclear threat as an existential threat, meaning they don‘t feel that if diplomacy fails, that they can live with a nuclear Iran. Their assessment is different than ours on this.

MATTHEWS: The odds are?

RUBIN: The odds are greater than 50/50.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me go to Bob Baer. Is it plausible—same question to you—that Israel will strike at Iran?

BOB BAER, FORMER CIA OFFICER: I think it‘s 50/50 or better. I agree with Michael. They look at the—the complete picture on this. They look at Lebanon. They look at the fact that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps has the missiles. And they have to do something now. I don‘t think sanctions are going to work.

MATTHEWS: Do they—bigger question to you because it‘s about the United States. Does the United States have to give them its compliance, its help, its OK, or can Israel strike on its own? Do we have to be party to this, or won‘t they do it?

RUBIN: Israel can strike on its own, but they can‘t finish the job on their own. It would take over a thousand sorties to do it right. The worst possible scenario for us would be that Israel starts something, and then the region becomes so messy that we feel that we have to finish it.

MATTHEWS: So you think we should help them.

RUBIN: I think that the idea is, if you‘re—if the worst-case scenario is military action, then we‘ve really got to ratchet up the other forms of coercion right now. And we certainly have to be prepared. We‘ve got to have sanctions alongside...

MATTHEWS: OK...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘m just trying to get to a question. Does Israel need our help to do the job?

RUBIN: No.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go to Bob Baer. Do they need our OK to give them, for example, to push Iraq to give them airspace and that sort of thing, to get to the target in Iran?

BAER: If you‘re sitting on the ground in Iraq and you‘re an American air controller and you see Israeli airplanes coming your way, how many minutes is the White House going to say yes or no? And the chances of saying no are zero. I don‘t think they need our help, but we will be drawn into a war, as a consequence.

MATTHEWS: So you both say that, technically, they could carry out the mission.

BAER: They could certainly start the mission.

MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s go to the question, Should we help them? If they decide—if Bibi Netanyahu makes the decision as prime minister of Israel, facing what you—what you believe he sees as an existential threat to the future of Israel and he decides to make the attack, should we help him?

RUBIN: The calculation has got to be on our interests. If the region is going to get messy, we‘ve got to do what we need to do to protect the United States‘ interests once Iran retaliates and should Iran retaliate.

MATTHEWS: If you were asked right now by the president, Should we help them, would you say yes or no?

RUBIN: I don‘t think now is yet the time.

MATTHEWS: OK. You wouldn‘t say yes now.

RUBIN: No.

MATTHEWS: OK. What do you think, Bob? should we say yes to the Israeli attack and say we‘ll help them?

BAER: We‘d say absolutely not.

MATTHEWS: Because I understand it‘s much more difficult for them to do it by themselves. But your thought is not to help them.

BAER: Not—we can‘t help them. We don‘t have enough troops. We‘d need a million troops in the Gulf. We would have to do something about the oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, to protect them.

MATTHEWS: OK.

BAER: Right now, we can‘t. Can we afford oil at $400 a barrel? Can we afford the mischief-making they would do in Iraq? And the answer is no.

MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s get to that point now. You both agree that Israel might do it. You both agree that it‘s more difficult for them to do it without us, but they could do it, right?

RUBIN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: And third question is, both of you think right now, the answer is we shouldn‘t encourage them to do it.

BAER: We should not.

MATTHEWS: OK, now the fourth question. If they attack the Israeli (SIC) nuclear facilities, as Netanyahu threatens to do, by the way, sometime next year at this point, because he‘s only giving our government up to the end of this year, what would be the consequences in order of importance, the consequences of an attack, because I‘m going to get the consequences of not attacking later. What are the consequences of an attack by Israel on the Iranian facilities?

RUBIN: The most important consequence of an attack would be that it would delay Iran‘s nuclear program, and it could delay it enough. That‘s what Israel‘s calculation is.

MATTHEWS: “Enough” meaning?

RUBIN: Enough to outlast the Iranian regime.

MATTHEWS: So the first instance, it would have a good effect.

RUBIN: The first instance, it would have a good effect.

MATTHEWS: What are the bad effects?

RUBIN: The bad effect is nothing like a military strike would rally the Iranian people around the flag more. The best thing that ever happened to...

MATTHEWS: I just talked to an Iranian emigre today, lives in this country. He‘s an American now. He believes it would give a 20-year life span to that faction running the country, the Ahmadinejad crowd.

RUBIN: I think that‘s possible, yes.

MATTHEWS: If Israel attacks.

RUBIN: People rally around the flag.

MATTHEWS: OK, so the first thing is good. It gets rid of—it puts them off maybe for a long time. Number two, they rally behind Ahmadinejad. The first two worst—or scenarios that you see, Bob, if they attack the facilities?

BAER: I think, again, it‘s the Gulf. It‘s the security of our oil.

I harp on this, but that‘s what the Iranians have said they‘re going to do. If they‘re attacked, no matter how minor the attack is, they‘re going to respond against oil. There‘s nothing we can do about it, and that‘s what worries me. In Iraq, as well.

MATTHEWS: The Straits of Hormuz. They shut off all oil shipments through the Straits, right?

BAER: They hit—they hit up (ph) cake (ph). It takes six million barrels off instantaneously, and we can‘t defend it. You know, secondly...

MATTHEWS: But doesn‘t that—doesn‘t that—doesn‘t that—that stranglehold, that chokehold, have a life span of itself? Can they keep doing that without committing suicide economically?

BAER: They‘re prepared...

MATTHEWS: I mean, how long can they...

BAER: ... to commit suicide.

MATTHEWS: ... raise the price that high?

RUBIN: They are.

BAER: They can. And they‘re ready to.

RUBIN: I absolutely agree. Iran‘s not a democracy. It doesn‘t matter what the ordinary people think, in the government‘s calculation. They will look at it—this—the leadership of Iran is the leadership that grew up in the Iran/Iraq war. They look at this and say, The vegetables are expensive? Well, when I was your age, I was fighting mustard gas on the front with Iraq.

MATTHEWS: OK, the way—the look of you right now—and I know you‘re emotional—passionate on this, not emotional. Is it possible, Michael, that the attack by Israel, which Bibi Netanyahu has threatened to carry out if we don‘t do something in stopping this weapons program by Iran, could be the beginning of a horrendous amount of action in the world, not just the end, but the beginning of spiking prices for oil, of Hezbollah attacks all over the place, not just Israel? What do you see happening?

RUBIN: Absolutely. And you‘ve got to balance that with, if Iran does go nuclear, you‘re going to have an end of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and a cascade of proliferation throughout the world. That‘s the choice.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you the final question tonight, and then I want to get to some of these quotes by people here. Bob Baer, what happens if we let Israel—we discourage Israel successfully and even (INAUDIBLE) maybe Netanyahu with a right-wing faction running the country there, with Lieberman, he decides not to move because we say, We don‘t want you to move?

If he doesn‘t move, what happens to the world if Israel is faced with a neighbor that hates it, wants to destroy it? Does that basically kill the notion of Israel as a safe haven for world Jewry in the long run? In other words, young people in their young 20s, young engineers, biotechnicians and all, would no longer want to live in that country because it‘s under a nuclear threat? Don‘t you—do you think that‘s a real prospect?

BAER: I think it‘s—Israel is under existential threat. I think if that Iran continues to grow, is a superpower or is a hegemon in the Gulf, that it ultimately it will affect Israel‘s survivability. There‘s no question about it. The Israelis have a point.

MATTHEWS: Michael? And that point is strong enough that it means their life. Do you buy that argument, that their life‘s at stake? And not over the year or two, but eventually, you cannot have an Israeli Jewish state, if you will, succeed if it‘s under the nuclear threat of a country that hates it.

RUBIN: There is a psychological threat, and with Iran‘s nuclear program...

MATTHEWS: By the way, it‘s a real psychological threat.

RUBIN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: It‘s not in the head.

RUBIN: But just as important is the uncertainty over who would control a nuclear bomb should Iran achieve that capability. Ordinary...

MATTHEWS: Who‘s got the button?

RUBIN: Who has the button, and under what circumstances would it be used? And that‘s what...

MATTHEWS: Who do you think is in charge in Iran right now? I want to get back to you. Who is making the decision to fire off these rockets? Who‘s making the decision to proceed in a way that looks like they‘re going towards weaponization? Who‘s calling that shot? Is it Khamenei, the boss, the supreme leader? Is it Ahmadinejad? Is a faction in the back room of old men, religious people? Who‘s making the call, Bob Baer, to go to war with us, basically, on this?

BAER: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And the new defense minister‘s from the IRGC. And don‘t forget that he blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina. These guys have blood on their hands, and we really can‘t predict what they‘re going to do.

MATTHEWS: Michael?

RUBIN: Absolutely correct. The supreme leader still has ultimate control with the Revolutionary Guard. But the problem is, no one really knows about the factions inside the Revolutionary Guard Corps. It‘s still relatively a black box. Politics—we talk about reformers, we talk about hard liners, but the real decision making is inside that Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

MATTHEWS: OK. A fellow I know out in Hollywood, a guy who‘s pretty smart otherwise, said to me that the only smart Israeli action is to not just to go in and blow up the facilities, but to take out the leadership. Is that a feasible Israeli Entebbe-style possibility? Bob Baer, you first. Could they go in and take out the leadership faction, kill them? Could they do that?

BAER: No, the country...

MATTHEWS: Decapitate this government?

BAER: The country‘s too big. Israel‘s air force is too small. It‘s too big. You can‘t do it. It‘s 71 million people. We‘re talking about—the result would be a conventional war. It would look like World War III.

RUBIN: I would agree with that. You go after the leadership if it can prevent a war. In this case, it can‘t...

MATTHEWS: But you see it written along those lines in terms of knocking out, like, say, one person, killing one person, like, a really bad guy out there. But is it feasible for Israel to do an Entebbe-style assault, where they go in and find six or seven guys in this faction behind Ahmadinejad and kill them?

RUBIN: What‘s much more feasible...

MATTHEWS: Because they‘ve done stuff like this on the West Bank.

RUBIN: Yes. What‘s much more feasible, if Iran has buried nuclear facilities under mountains, they don‘t have to destroy the facilities, they just need to destroy the entrances to them.

MATTHEWS: And how long do they keep those sealed by blowing them up?

RUBIN: They set the program back a year or two and hope that the international community actually—actually becomes active.

MATTHEWS: Yes, the trouble is, the international community, from an Israeli point of view, goes the other way.

RUBIN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: What‘s your thought, Bob...

(CROSSTALK)

BAER: ... the intelligence isn‘t good enough.

MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes. What I‘ve heard as a scenario is they blow up, in the short run. They do the best they can and say, More coming if you keep going. Have you heard that argument?

RUBIN: I have heard that argument. And what‘s interesting, it‘s the same argument that was made when the Israelis went over after the Iraqi reactor in 1981. Critics said...

MATTHEWS: OK. How much longer do we both have—you both have, not me. I‘m watching you guys. You‘re the experts. How longer (ph), Michael, and how longer, Bob, do we have to keep Netanyahu from acting?

RUBIN: I‘d say it‘s in weeks—months, if not weeks.

MATTHEWS: Bob, how long has the United States got leverage over Netanyahu, the head of Israel, not to attack Iran?

BAER: I think Netanyahu...

MATTHEWS: Have we got a year?

BAER: He‘s given three months. He‘s got to see something happening in three months or he‘s going to start his planning. They‘ve already started their planning.

MATTHEWS: I think we‘re all on the same page on this. It‘s pretty scary. Thank you Michael Rubin from AEI, and thank you, Bob Baer, who knows his stuff.

Israel: US Urges Investigation of War Crimes Allegations

Israel: Defense Minister Barak Escapes British Arrest for War Crimes

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Tuesday, Washington urged Tel Aviv to conduct credible investigations into allegations of war crimes conducted during the offensive operation in Gaza. Michael Posner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, said:

We encourage Israel to utilise appropriate domestic (judicial) review and meaningful accountability mechanisms to investigate and follow up on credible allegations. If undertaken properly and fairly, these reviews can serve as important confidence-building measures that will support the larger essential objective which is a shared quest for justice and lasting peace.

The U.N. Human Rights Council held a one-day debate on the Goldstone report and reiterated the charges of war crimes both by Hamas and Israel.

After Washington's statement, Richard Goldstone responded: "United States has called for acceptable investigations of the allegations by both sides. I think that's important support." As for the possiblity of bringing Israeli officials in justice, Goldstone said: "International courts are courts of last resort, not first resort."

Goldstone's report urges the U.N. Security Council to refer the allegations to the International Criminal Court in the Hague if either Israeli or Palestinian authorities fail to investigate and prosecute those suspect of such crimes within six months.

Audio: Bin Laden's Latest Message "A Warning to Europe"

Osama bin Laden's new audio message is calling on European countries to end their alliance with the US and withdraw forces from Afghanistan: "An intelligent man doesn't waste his money and sons for a gang of criminals in Washington. If today Europe is suffering the travails of the economic crisis, and the heart of Europe is no longer number one in world exports, and America is reeling from the haemorrhage caused by the economic war, then how do think you will fare after America pulls out?"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h2PVDeUlZc[/youtube]

Video & Transcript: Palestine's Abbas at the UN General Assembly

See also Palestine Video and Transcript: Mahmoud Abbas Makes Statehood Bid at UN General Assembly (23 September 2011)

On Friday, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas spoke to the UN General Assembly, blaming Israel for its continued construction of settlements and of the separation wall isolating Jerusalem from the West Bank. While praising Washington's active policy in the region, he said that time was running out for a resolution and the cost of peace was increasing. Moreover, he depicted Hamas, without mentioning the group's name, as the perpetrators of a coup in Gaza,  while assuring the Assembly that Palestinians will form a unity government with the assistance of Egypt.



Transcript of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas's speech at the United Nations General Assembly:

Mr. President, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of Israel's colonial occupation is crystal clear to the world.

Since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, including east Jerusalem in 1967, Israel continues with its settlement policy on all Palestinian land, especially in holy Jerusalem, where that policy is currently being accelerated and escalated through various means including the seizure of the homes of Palestinian inhabitants in the city and the imposition of restrictions and even preventing Palestinians from building and sometimes from repairing their homes, while new settlement neighborhoods are being established. And Jerusalem is becoming completely isolated from its surroundings because of the illegal settlements and the apartheid wall.

We now face a unique situation. If international law stipulates the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, how can we, then, deal with the current situation where Israeli settlement policy will undermine the goal of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state and implementation of the will of the international consensus that has been expressed in the various resolutions and principles, including the roadmap, which we all agreed upon and which is based on the principle of land for peace and ending the occupation that began in 1967.

Immense efforts have been exerted and many conferences have been held during the past years, particularly since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Yet all of this has not led to a conclusion of this conflict. President Barack Obama has given much hope to our people and the peoples of the region when he announced his vision of a peace agreement on the basis of a two-state solution and the cessation of all settlement activities. We welcomed the active American diplomacy to revive the peace process, and all efforts of the international quartet and its parties, the United Nations, the European Union, and the Russian Federation and the United States.

All of these active efforts and initiatives, which have been welcomed and supported by us and by the Arab states, are, however, confronted with Israeli intransigence, which refuses to adhere to the requirements for relaunching the peace process. How is it conceivable that negotiations can be held on the borders and on Jerusalem at the same time that Israeli bulldozers are working to change the reality on the ground with the aim of creating a new reality and imposing borders as Israel desires? How can one conceive holding negotiations without agreement on the terms of preference and the objective end goal of these negotiations that the whole world has unanimously agreed upon, namely ending the Israeli occupation of the territories occupied in 1967, establishing the state of Palestinian with Jerusalem as its capital, achieving a just and agreed-upon solution to the question of Palestinian refugees on the basis of resolution 194 of 1948 and achieving peace on all Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese tracts as affirmed (ph) by the Arab Peace Initiative which provides a precious opportunity that must be seized upon to achieve peace.

In this regard, I would like to express our deep appreciation for the important speech delivered before this august (ph) body two days ago by President Obama, in which he affirmed the necessity for ending the occupation that began in 1967 and the legitimacy of the settlements. He also stressed the necessity for establishing an independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state and for addressing all of the finance status issues in the negotiations, foremost among these Jerusalem, refugees, borders, water, settlements, and others. We reiterate that adherence to these principles and basis, in addition to a complete freeze of all settlement activities, can salvage the peace process and open horizon for its success.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I reaffirm the eagerness of the Palestine Liberation Organization to achieve a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in accordance with the resolutions of international legitimacy. At the same time, I caution that the settlement policy and the building of the separation wall, which continue to be pursued by the Israeli occupation, will abort opportunities to relaunch the peace process.

Time is running out and the risks are becoming greater as a result of the continued suffering of the Palestinian people under the last remaining occupation in the world. We call upon the international community to uphold international law and international legitimacy and to exert pressure on Israel to cease its settlement activities, to comply with the signed agreements, and desist from the policies of the occupation and colonial settlements, to release the 10,000 -- correction, the approximately 11,000 prisoners and detainees, to lift -- and to lift the unjust siege imposed on the Gaza Strip, which was subjected months ago to a devastating aggression, causing thousands of casualties among civilians, wreaking unprecedented destruction of infrastructure and public facilities, including even hospitals, mosques, schools, and United Nations facilities.

Ladies and gentlemen, our people, which continues to adhere to its (ph) strikes and to remain in its homeland despite all of the suffering caused by the arrests, the blockade, and the killings, is also keen to end the internal division and to restore national unity. Our sister, Egypt, is making commendable efforts to achieve. And in spite of all our suffering from occupation and its practices, we continue to work to build and develop our national institutions. We have made significant achievements in this regard, both at the level of upholding the rule of law and public order and promoting economic and social development despite the harsh conditions of the occupation and the blockade. We continue to make every possible effort for the success of the efforts of our brothers in Egypt to end the ongoing coup in the Gaza Strip and to restore our national unity by resorting to ballot boxes and holding presidential and legitimate (ph) elections on their constitutional date under the supervision and control of Arab and Islamic countries, the United Nations, and the international community. Thus, democracy will be firmly institutionalized in our political life.

Mr. President, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, hope will remain alive in our shores (ph) and we will not despair of regaining our rights on the basis of relevant resolutions of the United Nations. The historic rule of which we reaffirm for attaining peace and upholding the principle of might for right and not right for might.

From this podium I conclude by reaffirming our commitment to the road map plan, the Arab Peace Initiative and to all terms of reference of the political process. And we call upon all parties to respect and abide by them, to provide the opportunity to launch a successful and effective peace process.

We are confident that all our brothers in the sisterly Arab countries will adhere to the Arab peace initiative as a basis for safeguarding our rights and to open the way towards real peaceful relations once occupation is ended and the independent state of Palestine is established.

With my profound thanks and appreciation for your kind attention, I thank you, and God's blessing be upon you all.

Analysis: Video & Transcript: Netanyahu at UN General Assembly!

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations General Assembly. In the speech, Netanyahu targeted the Iranian regime and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas, the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War, and those UN members who did not walk out during Ahmadinejad's earlier address.

Netanyahu reiterated the the Israeli official discourse of the Bushian era between 2001 and 2009. His arguments were "applicable" within the context of the "war on terror" and within the "holy" war of modernization against terrorists, and he portrayed today's Israelis suffering the same "punishment" Jewish people had experienced from Hitler's Germany (read Adolf's successor as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).

For Netanyahu, "the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction." And, since "Teheran is the motherland of terrotist activities and funding", that must mean Iran is Danger Number One:

Part 1 of 4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HkjBDQz_k[/youtube]

What should the world do in this case? Netanyahu said that the world must "prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters". This would bring peace "like the belated victory over the Nazis, [but] the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind."

What if the world does not care about Israel? Then, said Netanyahu, they would eventually suffer as had happened throughout history. He said: "Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong... History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others."

Part 2 of 4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofIwsB7xDm8[/youtube]

Indeed, there is another "decent" factor that demonstrates Israel's "just war on terror":

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should  the rest respond? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians ? Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

Part 3 of 4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gkjEUjK4as[/youtube]

At the end, for the Israeli premier, criticizing and condemning Israel is the same of chosing your side with the other - terrorist regimes which has no difference than Nazis. Netanyahu is angry because "the world is encouraging terrorism by supporting the Goldstone report!" Therefore, he re-called George W. Bush's "you are with us or with them" rhetoric and asked the members of the Assembly to withstand with itself. Netanyahu said:

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report [the Gaza report] is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.

Part 4 of 4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPEdIWa5H9k[/youtube]

Transcript of Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech:

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews.

Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler?s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father?s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances ? by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing ? absolutely nothing ? from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians ? Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us ?my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples ? a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.
But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.
I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.