The Iranian threat

When it comes to Israel's security, the Likud headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, has proved its ability to identify dangers to the country while implementing policies that effectively curb those dangers. Already in 1996, while serving as Prime Minister, Netanyahu addressed the US Congress and warned that the Iranian threat is the greatest threat facing the entire civilized world. Netanyahu urged the members of Congress to confront the Iranian regime at that time; unfortunately, his call was not sufficiently heeded.

Twelve years later, Iran is closer than ever to achieving nuclear capability, a situation that would at once pose an existential threat to the State of Israel and radically change the balance of power in our region, thus endangering the entire world.

An Iran armed with nuclear weaponry would set a historical precedent where an irrational and irresponsible regime would be equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Terror organizations would enjoy nuclear reinforcement, the world's oil sources would be vulnerable to a rapidly increasing threat of takeover, and the world would witness a frightening proliferation of nuclear weapons all over the world.

In addition, Iran is likely to arm the terror cells it controls with nuclear weapons. The chances of deterring the irresponsible Iranian regime from doing this using conventional methods are almost nil.

The danger Israel faces from the unpredictable behavior of the Iranian regime is clear: Iran has declared openly its intention to erase Israel from the global map, Ahmedinijad is well-known as a Holocaust denier though he has vowed to create another Holocaust and to launch missiles against the Jewish state marked "Death to Israel".

Israel is not the only country facing this great threat. While Israel is clearly the primary target of the Iranian missiles, Europe faces the same danger: even now, the Iranians are working on longer-range missiles capable of reaching the nations of the European Union , and within several short years, even the shores of America.

Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons must be the first priority of the next government of Israel, whether this involves rallying world public opinion to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran or preparing for an appropriate military response should all other efforts fail.

Here is where the sharp contrast lies between the Likud and its leader and other parties. Zippy Livni, head of the Kadima Party, has already expressed her position that Iran poses no existential threat to the State of Israel. How can she convince world leaders to support a struggle to prevent Iran from arming with nuclear weapons if she herself is unaware of the danger this poses? How can she take action against existential threats to the State of Israel if she cannot even identify them?

This inability to identify existential threats to the State of Israel is not limited to the case of Iran. When Ehud Barak and Zippy Livni promised that our citizens would be safer after the hasty unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, Benjamin Netanyahu warned against those measures. When Benjamin Netanyahu resigned before the Disengagement, he and other Likud members repeatedly maintained that unilateral withdrawal would only reinforce Palestinian terror, imperil Israel, and undermine the chances of achieving real peace. At that time, many citizens supported the Disengagement, and the warning about this step strengthening the presence of Iranian terror cells in those areas to be evacuated were met by ridicule and indifference.

No more unilateral withdrawals

The 4000 rockets fired at the Galilee and Northern Israel during the Second Lebanon War, and the 4000 rockets fired at Israel from Gaza have proven to many people in Israel that the warnings issued by the Likud and its leader against unilateral withdrawals were not empty. Today, after the Disengagement, Hizbullah holds new and more dangerous weapons than it ever possessed. While there is a cease-fire in Gaza, Hamas continues to bring in tremendous quantities of munitions in preparation for the next round of terror. In the final analysis, these withdrawals and the Disengagement have turned an already complicated situation into one that is even more complex and perilous.

There cannot be any unilateral withdrawals in the future. Any area that the IDF evacuates will be taken over at once by the Hamas, and every withdrawal will broadcast a message of weakness and surrender.

The Likud is prepared to make concessions in exchange for peace, such as Menachem Begin did in the peace treaty with Egyptian President Anwar Saadat - concessions in exchange for a true and reliable peace agreement. Only through such arrangements which protect Israel's security can we promote peace with our neighbors.

A Peace that Can Succeed

The current peace negotiations, initiated at Annapolis, with their focus on reaching a final status agreement immediately, are misguided. I do not believe that the Palestinians are prepared today to make the type of historic compromise that would end the conflict. There is no evidence that the Palestinians will accept even the minimal demands that any responsible Israeli leader will make. The Palestinians rejected an offer of sweeping concessions eight years ago, and there is no evidence that their positions on any of the core issues have become more moderate. If anything, faced with a weak Israeli government, their positions have only hardened.

Israel should be focusing its efforts instead on helping Abu Mazen and Fayad improve the day-to-day lives of Palestinians. In particular, we should be trying to help them rapidly develop their economy. While this will not resolve the conflict, it can create an environment in which negotiations would have a better chance of succeeding. A Likud-led government will immediately focus on a serious and sustained effort to fundamentally change the situation on the ground.

Where we draw the lines in any peace agreement

When the times comes for a final-settlement negotiation, the Likud will draw the line in a clear-cut way:

The Likud and its leader will insist that the responsibility for the security of the citizens of the State of Israel remains firmly in the hands of the State and that Israel's right to defend its borders will be secured, a right that is grounded in UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

Responsibility for Palestinian Refugees - belongs with the Arab Countries

A Likud-headed government will not allow thousands, certainly not millions, of Palestinian refugees to enter Israel. Israel will not take any moral responsibility for those refugees, since their very plight today is the result of the fatal decisions made by the Arab world: the decision to declare war on Israel instead of accepting the right of Jews to have a country of their own, and the decision maintained ever since 1967 to deny those Palestinian refugees the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and continue their lives in Arab countries.

Jerusalem undivided and under Israeli rule

The government headed by the Likud will keep Jerusalem the unified capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty. For 2000 years Jews from all over the world have yearned to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their historical capital. Jerusalem is the very heart of Jewish culture and we will continue to preserve it as such, while allowing freedom of religion and access to all religions in their holy places in the city.

The worst action that can be taken for peace is dividing Jerusalem. Such a step would create a permanent site of friction that is likely to ignite the entire region. Only an undivided Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty can preserve regional peace.

The War Against Terror

A Likud-lead government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu provides us with proven ability to wage a war against terror. In 1996, after his election, Netanyahu was handed a country reeling from multiple terror attacks. In the three years that he served as Prime minister, only three terror attacks took place. Although this was three too many, the Netanyahu government managed to restore a sense of personal security to the citizenry and to subdue Palestinian terror.

After the {Palestinians launched their massive terror attacks following the failed Camp David talks, Netanyahu contended that Israel must move from enduring a war of attrition to launching a decisive military operation against the Palestinian regime. Over a two year period, the government ignored those recommendations and refused to take any military action. Hundreds of Israelis paid the price of this inaction - with their lives. When action was finally taken in 2002, the result was a dramatic drop in terrorist activity within Israel.

The Likud government under Netanyahu will combat every terror offensive with a clear and decisive response.