for more speeches by Netanyahu press here for a video connection see:Hearing on the "Conflict with Iraq An Israeli Perspective" c-span "Conflict with Iraq - An Israeli Perspective". 12 September 2002 (Mr. Netanyahu address in a hearing hosted by the House Committee on Government Reform ) Distinguished Representatives, Last year, a few days after September 11, I was given the privilege of appearing before this committee to discuss the issue of terrorism. But had I been given the opportunity to speak to you before September 11, I would have offered similar suggestions about how the war on terrorism should be fought and how it can be won. I would have pointed out that the key to defeating terrorism lies in deterring and destroying those regimes that harbor, aid and abet terror. I would have argued that to root out terror, the entire terror network, consisting of half a dozen terror regimes and some two-dozen terrorist organizations, would have to be brought down. Most important, I would have warned that the greatest danger facing our world is the ominous possibility that any part of this terror network would acquire nuclear weapons. Yet even had I presented my views in the most coherent and persuasive fashion, I have no doubt that some of you, perhaps many of you, would have regarded them as exaggerated, even alarmist. But then came September 11, turning fiction into fact and the unimaginable into the real. That single day of horror alerted most Americans to the grave dangers that are now facing our world. Those Americans understand that had Al Qaeda possessed an atomic device last September, the city of New York would not exist today. They realize that we could all have spent yesterday grieving not for thousands of dead, but for millions. But for others around the world, the power of imagination is apparently not so acute. It appears that these people will have to once again see the unimaginable materialize in front of their eyes before they are willing to do what must be done. For how else can one explain opposition to President Bush’s plan to dismantle Sadaam Hussein’s regime? I do not mean to suggest that there are not legitimate questions about a potential operation against Iraq. Indeed, there are. But the question of whether removing Sadaam’s regime is itself legitimate is not one of them. Equally immaterial is the argument that America cannot oust Sadaam without prior approval of the international community. This is a ruler who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons. This is a dictator who has used these weapons of mass destruction against his subjects and his neighbors. And this is a tyrant who is feverishly tying to acquire nuclear weapons. The dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Sadaam were understood by my country two decades ago, well before September 11. In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Began dispatched the Israeli air force on a predawn raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Though at the time Israel was condemned by all the world’s governments, even by our closest friend, history has rendered a far kinder judgment on that act of unquestionable foresight and courage. History’s judgment should inform our own judgment today. Did Israel launch that preemptive strike because Saddam had committed a specific act of terror against us? Did we coordinate our actions with the international community? Did we condition that operation on the approval of the United Nations? No, Israel acted because we understood that a nuclear-armed Sadaam would place our very survival at risk. Today, the United States must destroy that same regime because a nuclear-armed Sadaam will place the security of our entire world at risk. Make no mistake about it. Once Sadaam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons will be used. Two decades ago it was possible to thwart Sadaam’s nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do. For Sadaam’s nuclear program has changed. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country – and Iraq is a very big country. Even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death. Knowing this, I ask all those who oppose the President’s plan – do you believe that action can be taken against Sadaam only after he builds nuclear bombs and uses them? Do these critics believe that a clear connection between Sadaam and September 11 must be established before we have a right to prevent the next September 11? I think not. If you intend to defeat the Mafia, you don’t just go after the foot-solder who carried out the last attack, or even stop with the apprehension of the particular don who sent him. You go after the entire network of organized crime. All the families, all the organizations – all of them. Likewise, if you intend to defeat terror, you do not just go after the terrorists who carried out the last attack, or even the particular regime that sent them. You go after the entire network of terror. All the regimes that support terror, all the organizations that they harbor – all of them. Doing this always entails the need to act before additional attacks are carried out. When the security of a nation is endangered, a responsible government has to take the actions that are necessary to protect its citizens and eliminate the threat that confronts them. Sometimes this requires preemption. In the history of democracies, preemption has always been the most difficult choice. Because at the time of decision, you can never prove the naysayers wrong. You can never show them the great catastrophe that was avoided by preemptive action. Yet we now know that had the democracies taken preemptive action to bring down Hitler’s regime in the 1930s, the worst horrors in history could have been avoided. And we now know, from defectors and other intelligence, that had Israel not launched its preemptive strike on Sadaam’s atomic bomb factory recent history would have taken a far more dangerous course. But the most compelling case for preemption against Sadaam’s regime was not made by the powerful words of President Bush at the United Nations but by the savage actions of the terrorists on September 11. Their wake up call from hell has opened our eyes to the horrors that await us tomorrow if we fail to act today. My friends, I speak here today as a citizen of the country that is most endangered by a preemptive strike. For in the last gasps of his dying regime, Saddam may well attempt to launch his remaining missiles, with their biological and chemical warheads, at the Jewish State. Though I am today a private citizen, I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a preemptive strike against Sadaam’s regime. We support this preemptive American action even though we stand on the frontlines, while others criticize it as they sit comfortably on the sidelines. But we know that their sense of comfort is an illusion. For if action is not taken now, we will all be threatened by a much greater peril. We support this action because it is possible today to defend against chemical and biological attack. There are gas masks, vaccinations and other means of civil defense that can protect our citizens and reduce the risks to them. Indeed, a central component of any strike on Iraq must be to ensure that the Israeli government, if it so chooses, has the means to vaccinate every citizen of Israel before action is initiated. Ensuring this is not merely the responsibility of the government of Israel, but also the responsibility of the government of the United States. Let me repeat: The governments of Israel and the United States must jointly ensure that the people of Israel have all the available means of civil defense before action begins. But no gas mask and no vaccine can protect against nuclear weapons. That is why regimes that have no compunction about using weapons of mass destruction, and who will not hesitate to give them to their terror proxies, must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. These regimes must be brought down before they possess the power to bring us all down. If a preemptive action will be supported by a broad coalition of free countries and the United Nations, all the better. But if such support is not forthcoming, then the United States must be prepared to act without it. International support for actions that are vital to a nation’s security is always desirable, but it must never constitute a precondition. If you can get it, fine. If not, act without it. Under exceptional circumstances, public figures may sometimes be forgiven for quoting themselves. I hope that today you will grant me this privilege. Nearly two decades ago, I wrote the following: “The West can win the war against terrorism. It can expose its duplicity and punish its perpetrators and sponsors. But it must first win the war against its own inner weakness. That will require courage. We shall need at least three types of courage. “First, statesmen must have the political courage to present the truth, however unpleasant, to their people. They must be prepared to make difficult decisions, to take measures that may involve great risks and subject them to public criticism. Second, the soldiers who will be called upon to combat terrorists will need to show military courage. Third, the people will have to show civic courage. The citizens of a democracy threatened by terrorism must see themselves, in a certain sense, as soldiers in a common battle. They must not pressure their government to capitulate or surrender to terrorism. If we seriously want to win the war against terrorism, people must be prepared to endure sacrifice and even, should there be the loss of loved ones, immeasurable pain. “Terrorism is a phenomenon that tries to evoke one feeling: fear. It is therefore understandable that the one virtue most necessary to defeat terrorism is the antithesis of fear: courage. Courage, said the Romans, is not the only virtue, but it is the single virtue without which all the other virtues are meaningless. “The terrorist challenge must be answered. The choice is between a free society based on law and compassion and a rampant barbarism in the service of brute force and tyranny. Confusion and vacillation facilitated the rise of terrorism. Clarity and courage will ensure its defeat.” Though I wrote those words almost twenty years ago, they were never as pertinent as they are today. A year after September 11, I am certain that this great nation possesses the three types of courage needed to defeat the monstrous evil that now confronts us. President Bush has shown courage by boldly charting a course to victory. The American military is once again prepared to shoulder the burden of defeating the enemies of freedom. And most of all, the American people have summoned the necessary courage to fight back and win. That courage was poignantly evident last year on Flight 93. In the eye of the storm, ordinary citizens displayed extraordinary heroism and rose to thwart the murderous designs of the terrorists -- thereby saving untold numbers of their fellow citizens, perhaps even some of you here today. It is that same civic courage that has been displayed this past year in the willingness of Americans to rally behind their government to wage the war on terror. I recognize this courage because I see it on the faces of my countrymen every day. Millions of Israelis who have been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of terror have stood firmly behind our government in the war against Palestinian terror. We have not crumbled. We have not run. We have stood our ground and fought back. You see, the terrorists and the tyrants of the world always get it wrong. They were wrong about Churchill’s England. They are woefully wrong about Israel. And they are wrong, dead wrong, about America. They simply do not understand the power of freedom. They think that by bombing our free societies we will collapse. They see our free debate as debilitating. They think our open discourse is a sign of weakness. They believe their cult of death is stronger than our love of life. But of course they are wrong. There is nothing stronger than the will of a free people uniting to protect its life and its liberty. Now it is up to us to prove the terrorists wrong once again. It will not be easy. It will demand some sacrifice. But it must be done today, for tomorrow’s sacrifice will be infinitely greater. Sixty year ago, Winston Churchill put it this way: “If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory.” My friends, this is the heart of the matter. What I said before this committee one year ago, holds true today. Today the terrorists have the will to destroy us but not the power. Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so. |
|