In May 2002 Netanyahu gave a speech to the Likud Central Committee. Half of the speech was devoted to the issue of a Palestinian state. You can read the whole speech here. I’m copying just the section that deals with the issue of a Palestinian state. It will be interesting to compare this speech with what Bibi says next Sunday.

“We are promising Palestinian terror the greatest prize of all – the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Today most of the Israeli public realizes that a Palestinian state under Arafat would be a bastion of terror directed at the destruction of the State of Israel.

But what about a Palestinian state without Arafat, under different leadership, after the Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa Brigaes have seemingly undergone reforms and become transparent, more responsible, under a different command?

What will happen then? Okay – let’s talk about this latest illusion.

The question is whether in a future settlement, the Palestinians would indeed enjoy self-rule. I, for one, have no desire whatever to rule over even a single Palestinian.

The question is whether we can agree that they have sovereign authority, power that goes beyond self-rule, which every country has. This power would include:

the right to have full control over borders, through which they could import unlimited arms and solders. States control their own air space – a Palestinian state would have the right to shoot down any Israeli plane overflying it without permission. States have the right to make military alliances with other countries – a Palestinian state would have the right to make such alliances with Syria, Iraq, Libya, ets. States control the water sources underground – a Palestinian state would have the right to control the mountain aquifer which supplies about 30 percent of Israel’s water and most of our drinking water. Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state are unwilling under any circumstances to give this power to the Palestinians. But the moment we agree to give them a state, that is exactly what we would be giving them!

It must be understood that sovereignty has its own power. Even if an agreement limiting certain sovereign rights were signed, within a short time, this Palestinian state would demand to have all these rights and would realize them, whether we agreed or not.

The world would not stand in the way of allowing the Palestinian state to appropriate all this authority, which would give it the power to destroy the State of Israel, but it would stand in our way if we tried to prevent it from realizing these rights.

Already today, under Arafat’s limited regime, the Palestinian are in wholesale violation of the restrictions they committed to in the Oslo agreements. They are smuggling weapons, polluting water sources, building an army, creating military ties with Iran, and instead of fighting against terror – they are the ones creating it and intensifying it.

And when we enter Area A to fight against terror, as is our right according to the agreements, the entire world is scandalized (Look what happened in Jenin!). Now imagine what would happen if there were a state there, that we agreed to, a state whose borders the entire world recognized.

If we agreed to such a state, we would be shackeling the Israeli army in iron chains of our own making, thus creating a danger to our very existence.

The danger posed to Israel by a Palestinian state has been defined precisely by Arafat himself. This is what Arafat said in the Arab-language media on the day he signed the Declaration of Principles of the Oslo agreement on the White House lawn, and I quote:

“Because we cannot defeat Israel in war – we must do so in phases. We will take any Palestinian territory we can lay our hands on and establish our sovereignty on it. Then we will use it as a jumping board for other conquests. And when the time comes, we will persuade the Arab countries to join us in delivering a mortal blow to Israel.”

That is what Arafat said.

In any future agreement, if and when we get that far, I see self-rule in which the Palestinians will have the freedom to rule themselves. But to establish a state, with everything that that concept entails, with all the powers I have enumerated, which would endanger Israel’s existence – that no.

Not under Arafat or under any other leadership. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The Palestinians can have full rights – with the exception of one: the right to destroy the State of Israel!

Self-rule – yes! A state – no!

We are told that a Palestinian state is the vision of the future. Okay, our nation also has a vision for the future: “And the wolf will lie down with the lamb” and when that vision is realized in the Middle East, we will be willing to discuss the subject once again.

I would like to read to you something that was said by a person who understood well and profoundly analyzed the danger posed to the survival of the State of Israel by a Palestinian state. This person was not a member of Moledet or the National Religious Party or the Likud. He was not even a member of the Labor party.

He was the leader of Mapam, the forerunner of today’s Meretz, the late Yaakov Hazan, who made the following comments in 1978, when minds in Israel had not yet been brainwashed by the sweeping propaganda of the proponents of Oslo. And this is what Yaakov Hazan said, and I quote:

“Guaranteeing our national survival requires that we fight against the establishment of another Arab state on the West Bank. The entire essence of such a state would be directed against the existence of the State of Israel. No agreements or contracts would do any good – nor would peace treaties. Life is stronger than any of these.

“Squeezed in between two states – Jordan on the east and Israel on the West – this state would be a pressure cooker, always on the verge of bursting, with the explosion directed first of all westward – against us.

“It would be a state that would not be able or want to control the ‘dissidents’ among it, with the excuse that it is too weak to do so. It would become the most dangerous of jumping boards for terror directed against us. And ultimately, when we once again would be required to take matters into our own hands – and to fight with one raid following on the heels of another, we would appear in the eyes of the world to be conspiring against the existence of a young state that had just been born.”

Some might say that reality has changed since them. Indeed it has – exactly as Yaakov Hazan expected it would. And if we continue on this path and enable the establishment of a Palestinian state, his prophetic words will come true in their entirety.

That is the reason I objected so firmly to the establishment of a Palestinian state when I was prime minister. The Oslo agreement was still in force then, before Arafat completely voided it. We did what we could then to keep the damage caused by the agreement to a minimum by insisting on the principle of reciprocity and reducing terror by directly threatening Arafat’s regime. And indeed, the level of terror dropped drastically.

As a result, the government that I headed, with the participation of then foreign minister Ariel Sharon, halted the withdrawal to the ’67 lines and during the three years I was in office, gave the Palestinians only 2 percent of the territory that was under our complete control. Arafat did not keep any of his other commitments, and consequently did not get even another inch of territory.

And I never at any time agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

When Arafat threatened to declare a state in the United Nations in 1999, I made it clear from the UN podium that in response, Israel would seize considerable areas in Judea, Samaria and Gaza – and Arafat backed off.

The Likud has always been firmly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of our homeland. This opposition has appeared in every Likud platform in election campaigns, including the most recent one.

That is what we went to the voters with, and that is what we got their mandate for. And all Likud leaders are committed to that mandate.

And now suddenly, without anyone authorizing it, without any democratic process, neither in the movement, the government, the Knesset and certainly not in general elections – by making uncalled for statements – one of the cornerstones of our platform and our national security has been undermined.

And in this way, the position of the left, which supports the establishment of a Palestinian state – the position held by Yossi Sarid and Shimon Peres – has suddenly become the official policy, as it were, of the State of Israel.

And as a result of this, it quickly became the official policy of the United States as well. Because if we support it, who can we expect from the Americans? That they be holier than the Pope?

This is not a minor change in some marginal section – it is one of our most basic positions, one that touches on our very survival.

Should we allow life or death decisions to be made in this way?

Whoever tells you that this is not on the agenda is either mistaken or misleading. Just today we have heard that Peres met with Mohammed Rashid to discuss the reforms needed over there in order to establish a Palestinian state. We have been told that we must not tie the government’s hands – and I say to you that on this crucial matter, we must halt the danger.

There is no question here of international “sensitivity,” of seemingly “complex” matters, or of damaging the prime minister’s stature. The only question that should concern us is that of the survival of our nation, and it is only that survival that we must safeguard.

Dear friends, let me say this once again loud and clear: There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan.

If we leave here tonight without making a decision on this matter, if we waffle or waver, not only will we not stop the rushing train of the Palestinian state, we will be stoking its fires and increasing its speed.

Because such an outcome would have only one interpretation: that the Likud has backed off from its own positions and given in to the dictate of the establishment a Palestinian state.

That must not happen.

From here, we must send out a message loud and clear to the entire world.

We must vote as one in favor of the proposal opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

We must not be frightened if the international community does not see eye to eye with us on these matters. Did the international community foresee the danger of the Holocaust? And when it finally opened its eyes, did it do anything to stop it? Did it as much as lift a finger?

Did it see the danger posed to our survival from the atomic reactor in Iraq? And when it did, did it not condemn us when Menachem Begin’s Likud government bombed that destructive facility from the air?

On matters vital to our survival, we have always taken resolute steps, and we have always spoken clearly, even when many others in the world did not agree with us.

Because, ultimately, the historical accounts are clear: Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish one. And yes to a Jewish state means no to a Palestinian one.