 תודה, אני ביקשתי, פתחות את, תשומת לבכן, במסיבת האתרוניים. As to, לתפתחות של דעתי, Point out your intention to a development according to, in my opinion, as, risking our security, I am referring to the bad agreement with Iran. Why bad? Because, A, it gives massive funds to terrorism, והוא חälletם spine, ת пут presents, פלאה והם ״down blue color Open Santos Halina只 danced at the fair where it lies. ת jointly, שי consistsa yardland. באמיל entrepreneurship specialize in esprecht TO IT. נדמה.32existences existence communityvisor כאן cybersecurity. ע spoilersizing organization. נדמה. буלפת. נדמה. נדמה. נדמה. נדמה. 20 פעמים יותר than the older version of central folks. Currently they have 5,000 from the older generation and now within two years they can produce double the amount of 10 or 20 times more than what they have. It increases their ability to produce uranium and mass scope of nuclear power. The third thing is a nuclear immunity. Essentially Iran is essentially immune to any sanctions, the P5 plus 1 committing you can be a threshold nuclear state and you are immune from an attack. What the agreement does not include is person for most A, no demand to stop terrorism, not addressing the issue of ballistic missiles, no addressing that's whatsoever, not addressing the issue of stopping development of nuclear weapons. Only two phrases, it's a general statement, nothing, they're not getting into the guts of producing nuclear weapons. This is what actually triggers nuclear power, not to ballistic missiles, not to nuclear weapons and of course no sufficient international monitoring, not effective Iran. This is a bad deal and I would like to stress it makes Iran get anything, everything and not give anything, nuclear weapons making no distinction between right and left, Jews, Arabs, orthodox, secular, there's a real serious threat, we must address it, so what needs to be done? First we need to acknowledge the fact that the current agreement is far worse than the previous nuclear deal and when I'm telling that, I'm saying that not because the previous agreement was good, it was not good, we need to understand why it wasn't good, it wasn't good because even Obama admitted, deal, zero breakout time in 13 years, Obama in 2015 said that in 2028, Seigerman T himself signed will essentially facilitate Iran to reach near zero breakaway time to reach nuclear weapons. This deal was so bad that I was needed as a Prime Minister for my friends to make some steps that when you're facing an existential catastrophe, you need some extreme measures, for example going to the American Congress, I cannot not act in public sphere, the only arena that has some clout over policy, I went to Congress, I went to the UN, I acted in every possible way, numerous other steps, some of them you know, some like the revelation of the nuclear archives, what showed the world, the exposure to the world that Iran decades ago already planned to produce atomic bombs from the type that destroyed Hiroshima. All of this in a bit to counter the public support and of course to conduct, to conduct operational activities as the former Chief of Staff Eisenstadt said without Israeli actions, Iran would have been on a nuclear threshold a long while ago, but to long say that is the diplomatic action and the diplomatic action created the crucial decision of President Trump, the U.S. withdrawals from the nuclear agreement with Iran now, tell me, but it did not stop the nuclear plan, so first it halted the crippling sanctions and direct military threat, incredible one, the only thing that stops that, nothing else stops that, maybe the credible military threat will not, but the deals will not stop the nuclear ambitions, it did not stop Syria, it did not stop Iraq in the time of Saddam Hussein, and it did not stop Qaddafi, the only thing that stopped them is the threat of a military action or a military action where we haven't seen a military threat in North Korea, there you had a deal, North Korea signed the NPT deal, that was worth nothing, there we had no military threat and when there is no military threat, those autocratic states are developing nuclear weapons and North Korea, the failed state and this is an understatement, is threatening half of Asia, threatening Japan, the West Coast of the U.S., meaning there is no substitute they're telling you, staying in the agreement, getting out of the agreement with or without an agreement, it doesn't matter, what counts is the existence of a credible military threat alongside crippling sanctions and if the threat is not working, then you need to be ready to act militarily as we've seen being done in several cases. This is the most fundamental thing and I want to tell you, this action is not just a military action, it's also a diplomatic action that enriches this counter pressure, this highway, this golden highway paving Iran's way for nuclear arsenal. Now that was our policy. Now what did Bennett, Lapid and Guns do? They did the exact opposite. First thing they did, or even beforehand, Lapid attacked me. Back in 2015, criticizing me that I led the counter pressure that led to this military threat and crippling sanctions. He attacked that, he said to them destroying the relations with the U.S. He knows the U.S. that I don't, he said what he said. Unfortunately, this thing came into expression later on. The secondest current government was formed in a decision that is so outrageous that I can't even describe it. But Bennett promised Biden I will not conduct a public campaign against going back to a nuclear deal with Iran. Now I want you to know, the Obama administration and President Biden himself asked me, repeatedly, let's talk about the disagreements between us behind closed doors we will send. Our officials, we will talk behind closed doors. Why did they say that? Because they know that the public campaign over public opinion in a congress, in a senate is the only way to influence the policy of the U.S. And they couldn't care less about the officials or the experts who said anything. They don't really give you anything. If they're determined to do this agreement you can speak to them behind closed doors as much as you want. So they saw that the public campaign that I led in the public sphere, they realized they need to stop the agreement. Obama asked me, let's do it quietly between us and Biden in our first or second conversation asked me that too and I told them both, my government, our government will act differently. And this is how we act it. And so I must say that what surprised me is that not just they gave this amazing promise not to operate public opinion sphere in America that this issue will stay between administration and between officials. The U.S. does not work like that. If you can't influence the public opinion in the U.S. you can't influence the U.S. You just can't. Especially if the president and the White House wants to go differently what will make them to work your way and only that way influencing public opinion. In every democracy here too they do not deny that but they went even further. God even said Israel could leave with a new nuclear deal meaning we can accept a new nuclear deal meaning their lack of action and their willingness to adopt it and bow their heads head of the in face of the American demands brought about this new agreement. Not just they gave up the diplomatic freedom of action they gave up the operational freedom of action because Israel committed to a no surprises policy with the U.S. meaning that it committed to report to the U.S. before every operation any operation against a nuclear deal and they asked me that too and I never agreed to that, never. Sometimes I reported sometimes I did not but I made clear I am not committed to reporting to you because I have a greater commitment to the security of my people of my country to my army and I will do whatever it needs to protect us from the nuclear from the Iranian threat and this is why this issue is extremely problematic why once you agree not commit, not to surprise the U.S. you are in fact giving up your freedom of action because if the U.S. they did when we did not report but when we did report all of a sudden you read about it post in New York Times they read about it there goes your operation or the alternative they can simply say no don't do it and this is before you had an agreement so what will happen after you have an agreement and you will come tell them well I want to do this or that operation they will say you will ruin the agreement and this is why this thing this deal essentially gives the Iran immunity and you are destroying this immunity so this is why Iran is a route to nuclear power and Israel is a bystander what is our policy A powerful worldwide global campaign against the nuclear deal New U.N. In a media, in congress every possible form that has a say to rapidly speak against the nuclear deal to provide the infrastructure the background to another administration to get out of the agreement and to legitimize to a possible action on our behalf if and when we act against a nuclear capability second second not be a country or shadowed by the U.S. but the sovereign state we don't need any agreement any approval for any operation on our end not a state sponsored by the U.S. today I interviewed them on Fox well I did it for years spoke in numerous platforms media outlets Americans and elsewhere in favor of our right to act against the nuclear deal and everywhere and today not just not just in mongo-western question audience but also Arab audience in al-arabia about an hour ago and they need to understand while we have created more I would say would not have materialized unless that issue the Arab countries saw that we have an un unwavering determination to act against a nuclear Iranian threat so peace and security are all based on adopting a complete opposite policy of the current government to commit clearly as prime minister with an agreement or without it with or without an American approval I will do everything but everything to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and one last word about another issue you probably remember the Iranian intervention in recent elections it was not reported by me but officially by Facebook demolished network that got involved in the elections and attacked Netanyahu now we're seeing another intervention from another direction from the Palestinian side this time around there's a secret meeting between Oden TV and Ramallah they met with the head of intelligence of the Palestinian Authority urging them to do everything so I will not get 61 seats so now it's obvious to you that they're not they're not worried about the interest of the citizens of Israel not even the Arab citizens of Israel they did nothing for them we did for them plans that deserve that the Arab public deserved and many of the Arab-Israeli citizens know that but here they met with a hostile element that is trying to meddle in the elections and we think it's extremely severe and we have filed an official complaint today and a request to investigate this issue I was worried when Gunn said that all I have no problem with the representatives of the joint Arab list yes of course because without them you can't form a government they have only 50 seats in parliament Gunn's Lapid with merits and the joint Arab list and Lieberman in a good day they reach 50 seats without the joint list and the wrong party they have no government all those challenges are major but I would like to conclude with a positive note of hope for the citizens of Israel we can overcome all of these challenges Israel's opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu holding a press conference in Tel Aviv right now speaking about what he calls a bad nuclear deal with Iran a lot to unpack he was addressing a television audience in Hebrew with me to unpack what we just heard is our senior international affairs correspondent Owen Ultiman breakdown with stood out we know he thinks the deal is a bad deal talk to us about the message he was giving in Hebrew right now listen I think it was a great performance I have to say I agree with the content I think as a communications performance I thought it was fantastic part fireside chat part greatest hits all the pictures are those greatest hits moments of course right of the Netanyahu theatrics over the Iran issue I don't want to say that in a condescending way obviously those theatrics had an important role to play as Netanyahu himself said of course what can you do we are just about two months away from elections part of it political messaging I thought it was done in a cheap way I thought it was done in a substantive way setting up a substantive contrast between his own approach to this issue and as he described the other side's approach to this issue of the Bennett and Lapid government and setting up that contrast in terms of substance in terms of the explanation the fireside chat part if you will about why the deal is a bad deal again I thought very effective from the communications perspective those slides with a very very big text to a few central points I thought very effective again going back and explaining his own history his long history with this issue this is an issue that I think sincerely drives him in a way that other issues may not and that he sincerely believes in what he says about this deal and in how he has handled it and how he has managed it again one can disagree with the tactics and the strategy in terms of going into the US Congress a little bit curious to put the Wiley his longest moments in this issue and then the political messaging as well again I thought not cheap but setting up a substantive contrast between his own position his own approach and the approach of Bennett and Lapid they certainly will have their own arguments but why they don't want to create conflict with the Biden administration very eloquently I think outlined his arguments about why that conflict is worth it and is essential for Israel and Israel's approach to this issue and again laying out exactly not sure this press conference was the place for that other issue at the end about the role of these Arab members of parliament it to me seems like a separate issue and Netanyahu was simply having a hitchhike on the rest of the presentation I thought less effective but the presentation on Iran I thought extremely cohesive Netanyahu again reminding viewers of his great strengths and Benita across the political spectrum here in Israel Netanyahu's ability to advocate for Israel to be a spokesperson for Israel and the Israeli point of view for the strongest attributes this was a way for him to remind voters of that again just about two months until election day and show images of other interviews he's done on this day with American networks with Arabic