[Fiona]

I am conscious I haven't seen the text of the speech, only the "edited highlights" which you have posted. I would like to see the whole speech since as reported it seems to be covering a lot of areas which have little relation to each other. I have no way of knowing how accurate the report is

Having said that, if I assume for the moment that this is an accurate reflection of what was said, we seem to have a number of issues.
1. The holocaust was a myth. This seems to me to be nonsense
2. The west has elevated the importance of the holocaust above the importance of god. Don't quite know what this means, but since the west is largely secular I wouldn't wish to argue with it. Nor do I see anything wrong with it
3. I infer that the speaker is arguing that Israel is given special status because of the holocaust and I think there is some evidence in support of this view. Israel does seem to have been shielded from criticism, at least in the past, and to some extent criticism of Israeli policy has been met with accusations of anti-semitism which others are very reluctant to attract.Guilt may play a part here
4. I agree with Magrus that there is no contradiction, and with his interpretation. I have to say that I find the question as to why Israel is where it is legitimate. Although there is a satisfaction for Israelis in being there, given their account of history, the real need was for a homeland and the security that gives. It could have been anywhere. I think there is a piquancy in the question as to why it was not placed in an area where anti-semitism was historically a major problem. I am not very educated in the history but I thought that the land was handed over by the British, when the territory was controlled by the UK. It would seem obvious it wasn't theirs to cede, and I also think I read that it had also been promised to the palestinians. If this is true there is no question that it was an inexcusable act by a colonial power.
5. Even if that is accepted it does not help much since it is unlikely that the western world will offer a comparable territory within their own borders, even if the current inhabitants of Israel would accept it. This is a stalemate and I see no solution to it.

6. The question of nuclear proliferation is entirely separate, I think. The non-proliferation treaty provides that non-nuclear states will not try to develop nuclear weapons and this is the part of the treaty which gets a lot of attention. However it also provides that the nuclear states will disarm and this is perhaps less well known. I see no progress at all on that part of the treaty, and if it is not honoured then why should the rest of it be?

7.The treaty also provides that the nuclear states will ensure that the non-nuclear states benefit from any peaceful techonology etc which arises from nuclear research and will do so without including the costs of research and development in the price to the non-nuclear nations. At least that is how I understand it. If that is right what are the Iranians doing wrong in trying to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes?

It seems arrogant to me that the west assumes the right to interfere in the affairs of what it is pleased to call "rogue states". Would it not be better to address those things which they can control and which they have treaty obligations to do ie to get rid of their own arsenals of nuclear weapons. They have had plenty of time to do so and if the rest of the world is tired of waiting, I can see their point.