PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s Address to the Council on Foreign Relations

Thank you, Richard, and thank you all for giving me the opportunity to spend some time  discussing the urgent problems of the day. I’m delighted that I have a very robust delegation with me here today, Ambassador Michael Oren, Ambassador Gabriela Shalev, Ambassador Asaf Shariv and my own delegation, Dr. Uzi Arad and Ron Dermer, and all those who are here today.

We had a good day in Washington. I told the Oval Office that the reports of the demise of the U.S.-Israel special relationship are not only premature, but they’re wrong. Now, they’re wrong not simply because of the unbreakable bond between our two countries. It’s a bond anchored in shared values, democracy being chief among them,  and shared interests. It’s a bond that transcends the differences of opinion our two governments might have from time to time. They’re wrong because in the past year, most of those differences of opinion have focused on how to best move the peace process forward, but not about the goal of moving them forward. We sometimes disagree on how to best achieve the renewal of the peace process, but we share a fervent desire to do so as speedily as possible.

So I think there’s a much greater meeting of the minds between President Obama and me on how to move forward at this time, how to make the transition from proximity talks into direct talks, and how to ensure that those direct talks are as substantive as possible and as soon as possible. I think that this delay does not get us any benefit. I think delaying the process, talking about talking, making conditions about getting into talks is a big mistake. I think it’s cost us about a year, and I don’t think it should cost us any more time.

Both sides have grievances, and we have grievances too. For example, the Palestinians call public squares in honor of terrorists, including the most recent. I can say, well, until they rename these squares, I won’t get into the talks. That can cost us a lot of time. I think that the right thing is to move directly into peace talks as soon as possible. That’s the only way that this thing is going to be resolved, and it needs a resolution.

The substance of  peace is a solution of two states for two peoples, in which a
de-militarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. This vision is anchored in two core principles, security and legitimacy. Security sounds obvious; it’s been around for a long time, but the nature of the challenge of security has changed. When the Oslo talks began, we launched the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, there were two things that were present, The first is the rise of Iran and its proxies, and the second is the rise of missile and rocket warfare.

These two new developments pose a significant problem for Israel. We are asked to prepare to vacate territories for this type of peace. We have just done that twice. Once in Lebanon, and the areas that we vacated were very quickly taken over by Iran’s proxies, which poured rockets and missiles into them, which were later fired on us.

The second time was in Gaza, we vacated every last inch of Gaza. And that area was quickly taken over by Iran’s proxies. They poured missiles and rockets into them, and they were soon fired into Israel — 12,000 rockets and missiles in total, in an area, I think, slightly smaller than New Jersey. Now, think about that — that’s a real problem.

Now, if we’re going to have a third withdrawal, we must address the question of how to prevent this from occurring a third time. Strike one, strike two, third strike you’re out. In the case of Israel, it is a palpable strategic threat because our cities are targeted, our airfields are targeted, our military installations are targeted. We have to have a real solution to this, not a solution on paper, but a solution on the ground that actually prevents the mass smuggling of rockets, missiles and other weaponry into the areas that we vacate.

This is a significant challenge. I spent a great deal of time speaking to President Obama about it in a serious way. I think he understands the full seriousness of this challenge. And I think that we’re committed, both of us, to try to find a realistic concrete solution to this issue — security, number one.

Secondly, the question of legitimacy. I think the solution of legitimacy means that we recognize the Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, and they recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. There is an implication about their recognition of us. It is that they prepare their people and themselves, the leadership, for the idea that the conflict is actually over.

That the Palestinian state is not a stepping stone to continue the conflict by other means, but it is an end to the conflict. An end to the claims of conflict: for example, the two most salient issues of legitimacy and ending the conflict revolve around the Palestinian refugees. Israel absorbs and has absorbed the Jewish refugees from the 1948 war, and from other parts of the world. The Palestinians accept the Palestinians refugees — the Palestinian state.

But equally, there are no demands, no irredentist demands of the — Israel’s Arab citizens. Their rights are fully guaranteed as individual rights, full civic equality in Israel, as is the case. And there are no demands for another separate state in the Galilee or in the Negev or autonomous regions.

In other words, this issue is resolved here and now. Sadat, the late Egyptian president said when he came to Jerusalem, he said, no more war, no more bloodshed. And what we expect President Mahmoud Abbas to say is, no more conflicts, no more claims, no more demands. Israelis are prepared to go a very long way. And I’m prepared to lead them a very long way to make peace.

But this has to be a real peace — secure and an end to conflict. These are the two principal goals, or the two principal pillars of peace that I put forward in my speech in Bar Ilan. That was one of the things that we did. We also removed hundreds, many hundreds of roadblocks, of checkpoints, earth ramps to facilitate movement in the Palestinian areas.

There is sort of an economic miracle in the Palestinian areas. The Palestinian leadership has been doing important things there. But they would have come to naught if we hadn’t changed the policies. Because you can’t have a robust economic and commercial growth if you can’t move goods and people. It’s just impossible.

And we facilitated them, and we changed it overnight. Not as a substitute for a political peace, but as a facilitator. The economic peace that I’ve spoken about that has come to pass is a very good supporter of a political peace.

And the third thing we did was to — actually, to do something that is unprecedented. I’m using the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s words. We — I decided, unlike any previous government, to freeze the construction in new settlements for a 10-month period to encourage the Palestinians to enter the peace talks. So far, seven months have passed. They haven’t come in.

They should come in. They should have come in yesterday. They should have come in 12 months ago, seven months ago. But we should not waste any time.

While we did this, Palestinians advanced the Goldstone report in the ICC. They tried to prevent, unsuccessfully I’m happy to say, our entry into the OECD. But despite these and other political pressures, it was accepted into the club — the big club. We still have to get to the G20, that will take some time.

But the accession to the OECD is a great tribute to the Israeli economy. And to all the continuing problems of incitement, I don’t think we should linger on this. I don’t think they should linger on us. I think we should seize the moment. And it’s a challenging moment and an important one when we have the ability to negotiate a peace.

We don’t know where the pieces in the Middle East will move in the coming years. We don’t know that. There is a great challenge at Iran — from Iran. There is movement in Turkey. There is today stability in Egypt. I think we should use this moment to advance the peace, and I’m prepared to do it.

There is risk in doing that. That’s what leaders do, they take risks. You mentioned the economy. I corrected the Israeli — some deficiencies in the Israeli economy; believe me, I took some risks. By the way, I was smart enough to do it young enough because you lose elections after that, and it allows you to come back.

But you come back. The only three people who came back a second time to govern Israel — one of them was Ben-Gurion, David Ben-Gurion, the other was Yitzhak Rabin, and I’m the third. When you get to be at my advanced age, you don’t come back to spend time in office. It’s not that pleasant anyway.

You come back to do something. I’m prepared to do something, and I’m prepared to take risks. I won’t take risks with our security, but I’m willing to take political risks. So does President Mahmoud Abbas — he must be prepared to take these risks. And I know that President Obama is willing to assists us in this. He has credibility in the Arab world; it’s important. This is an asset that can be used, but we have to get on with it.

We should just stop all the delays, stop all the preconditions, stop all the pretexts and start now, next week, in two weeks. Get the talks going. Because only if we start them can we complete them.

I think people talk about a bottom-up process, but we talked about the economy and the top down — top-down political process. In my view, the top down part of that equation can only be handled from the very top. It can only be done by the leaders themselves. You can’t just have the leaders show up for the ribbon cutting ceremonies.

It won’t happen by forming dozens of committees and holding countless meetings. I think that’s actually not productive. I can tell you all the decisions I’ve made on changing things inside Israel, I’ve always had to participate in them and always had to cut through a lot of — well, this is polite company. You just have to get on with it, and get — address — grapple with the issues directly. There is no other way. And this is what, I’ll say for the last time, what is required now.

Now I know there is a lot of skepticism. After 17 years, since the beginning of the Oslo process, skepticism is certainly warranted. But remember that moment when Sadat came to Jerusalem. Remember that only a few years earlier, Egypt and Israel had fought a terrible war.

People dismissed Begin and they dismissed Sadat. You should read the mountains of skeptical print that were written about them. I intend to confound the critics and the skeptics. I need a partner. You can’t go on a trapeze, hold out your hand, and not have a partner on the other side. You have to have that.

So this is one great challenge that we face today that I feel — I feel we’re up to it, and I feel the moment has arrived: the making of an Israeli-Palestinian peace that our people yearn for, pray for, that could bring untold benefits. You’re already seeing part of that before we have a formal peace in the West Bank.

And you can posit a lot of things that can happen in the region. Israel is a great economic engine, a fount of creativity. It’s probably the most innovative — I don’t think there’s a more innovative society on earth, a more innovative economy. And we can unleash those forces. We have internally. We can do this in the region and we can bring a different life, a different reality to our children, the Palestinian children, and the other peoples of the region who choose to partake in this vision of peace with us.

But there is another challenge. It’s a great one. I’ve been talking about it for many years. Fourteen years ago, when I came to the United States, shortly after I was first elected prime minister, I spoke — I was given the honor of addressing the joint session of the U.S. Congress. And I said — I said then that the greatest danger facing the world was a threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. I can tell you that quite a few eyebrows were raised at the time. Far fewer are raised today. There is now a broader, and I would argue, a deeper understanding of the potential dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. You hear it in Europe. You hear it in just about every private conversation that I or my staff have with Arab leaders and Arab officials, almost every single one. There is just about no exception.

All of these leaders understand that Iran is not merely a threat to Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran. They understand that if the world’s greatest sponsor of terror gets the world’s most dangerous weapon, it is a threat to the region and a threat to the entire world.

Now, the problem in historical circumstances is translating understanding into action. Actually, the problem in many catastrophic periods of history was that there was no understanding. That is a prelude to correct action. But once you have understanding, there’s still that gap between what is understood to be required and what is done.

I spoke with the White House about the importance of the latest round of the U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iran, as well as the recent congressional sanctions bill signed by President Obama last week. These U.N. sanctions are important because they send a message to that regime that the international community, led by President Obama, stands firmly against Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. sanctions are important because they have more bite. And the sooner they’re implemented and the more rigorously they’re enforced, the more bite they will have. And I hope that other countries in Europe and elsewhere will follow with tough sanctions, particularly those that target Iran’s energy sector. The regime is vitally dependent on that.

But I think that we cannot be sure that these sanctions will have the necessary effect of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, and therefore I appreciated President Obama’s statement that he is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and that all options are open.

I think to fully translate understanding into actions, we must address the question of whether the world can live with a nuclear Iran. For a lot of influential people, and I suppose for some of the people here today, a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly be a danger, but perhaps I think it wouldn’t be a new danger. After all, the Soviets had nuclear weapons. They were contained. So, too, it is argued, a nuclear-armed Iran could be also contained.

But the Soviet Union is far different and was far different from what we see today in Iran. The Soviets certainly had global, ideological ambitions, but in international affairs, they acted with supreme rationality. Every time the Soviets were faced with a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose survival: in Berlin, in Cuba and elsewhere. And to the best of my knowledge, there were not many Soviet suicide bombers.

The Iranian regime is different. They’re driven by a militant ideology that is based on an entirely different set of values, a value system that may seem entirely irrational to us but is pervasive, very powerful, among those competing for leadership among the Islamic militants.

Look at what happened nearly a decade ago in another part of this militant world. The Taliban allowed al Qaeda, operating on its soil, to dispatch terrorists to bomb New York, this city, and to bomb Washington. Now, what were they thinking? Did they think that the greatest power in the world would simply ignore mass destruction in its cities? Did they think that the United States of America would ignore an attack on its financial center, on its military headquarters, on its capital city? Were they that stupid? Or were they instead driven not by cool reason but by a fiery fanaticism that overcomes normal logics?

Iran sends children into mine fields. Iran denies the Holocaust. Iran openly calls for Israel’s destruction. Iran empowers Hezbollah with rockets and has overtaken half of Lebanon. Iran empowers Hamas with rockets, has overtaken Gaza and half of the Palestinian polity. Iran has sent saboteurs and terrorist squads into Egypt. Iran sends tentacles into the Yemen and threatens directly Saudi Arabia. Iran sends weapons into South America. This is what they do today when they don’t have nuclear weapons. Think of what they will do tomorrow when they do have them.

It is very hard for modern men and women to come to terms with the role of irrationality in human affairs. We tend to think that people and states are driven solely by interests, by a sober calculation of cost and benefit. We must recognize that those who glorify death and those who dispatch hordes of suicide bombers are not driven by grievances which can be addressed or by a despair which can be alleviated.

We must recognize that there are wide-eyed true believers, even mad believers in the world. There are fanatics who subscribe to a twisted creed and they are willing to pay any price of its realization. And they are driven by a fervent hope that they will succeed at any price.

Shakespeare advises to see the method in the madness. But facing today’s militants in the Greater Middle East, we should be well-advised to see the madness in the method — to recognize that not everyone is constrained by the calculus of cost and benefit that has been associated with nuclear weapons; to recognize that some people, organizations and regimes might act in ways that no one has acted since the advent of the era of nuclear peace that has followed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We must not allow the world’s most dangerous regimes to possess the world’s most dangerous weapons. This is the single greatest challenge of our time, and we must not fail to address it.

Thank you very much.