New York, NY

Henry Siegman [HS]: Ladies and gentlemen, if I might have your attention. Several brief points before we begin our program, the first and most important of which is I need to confirm the suspicion some of you may have that I am not Les Gelb. I am Henry Siegman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Les unfortunately was detained in traffic—we’ve been waiting for him to show up—and apparently he will not make it. So I have been asked to say to you some of the things that he would have said to you, briefly, and he would of course have said them far more eloquently and elegantly than I can.

On his behalf I wish to express grateful thanks to HBO, represented here today by Richard Plepler, Sheila Nevins, and Nancy Abraham for the opportunity to screen Oliver Stone’s timely, provocative film about the very complex conflict in the Middle East. And of course a warm welcome back to Shimon Peres, whose conversation with Richard Cohen will immediately follow the screening.

And now I will welcome Oliver Stone to the Council and ask him to come up and say a few words of introduction about the film.

(Background Conversation/Applause)

Oliver Stone [OS]: Thank you, Mr. Siegman. Thank you HBO’s Miss Sheila Nevins, Mr. Richard Plepler, Miss Nancy Abraham, and members of the Council for organizing this premiere, actually it’s a world premiere, of our documentary “Persona Non Grata.” And I thank you Mr. Shimon Peres, not only for being one of the actors in this enterprise, but for gracing us today with your presence.

I still think you have a serious future in Spencer Tracy parts. (Laughter) If only the world were a movie and directors could resolve the ending. But growing up in New York City in the 1950s and ’60s, I was always struck by the huge amount of front-page space given in the New York Times and others newspapers to Israel and Palestine. Endless headlines of breakthroughs and near records that never happened. Though in numbers of casualties in geographic size, the conflict is not remotely comparable to the madness of the other wars. America is obsessed with Israel and the region.

So you wonder, I wonder, is it about oil, is it about money? And the more I was over there, the more I began to believe, as a dramatist, perhaps you’d say, that it was something older, something more biblical, in essence of land and religion and the self, the roots maybe of Cain and Abel, unable through Semitican blood to abide each other. Two angry people - they cannot hear each other anymore, is what Mr. Peres said in the film. The Middle East is full of tongues and short on ears. And in a political framework he said, “What the Left doesn’t understand is that you need the right to make peace. What the Right doesn’t understand is that you need the Palestinians.”

So with the great help of French and Spanish producers we went down the rabbit hole of the Middle East. Idealists have a way of disappearing in the desert, and though many criticized us without seeing the film, of immortalizing Mr. Arafat, our biggest problem was really to find him. And as his promises dragged on like a bad Akim Tamaroff movie, it ended more like a Stanley Kubrick one, with the world of March 2002 crashing down on us. So in the spirit of the Middle East permit me to present our little odyssey. Thank you. (Applause)

(Film/Applause)

Richard Cohen: Good afternoon. I just want to remind you that today’s session is on the record. And as a journalist that always means code to me that nothing interesting will be said. (Laughter) But today is going to be an exception because truly we have a man that needs no introduction. But just for the record, Shimon Peres is a Nobel Prize Laureate in Peace. He has been Foreign Minister of Israel, Defense Minister of Israel, Information Minister of Israel, Prime Minister of Israel, and I think since 1948 the only post he hasn’t occupied is Miss Israel. (Laughter)

Shimon Peres [SP]: Minister of Religion.

RC: Minister of Religion. Sorry. So I’m going to chat with him for just a little while and we’ll turn it over to the audience as quickly as possible because we’re running late. It’s been a kind of busy 24-48 hours in the Middle East. We have the confirmation of a Palestinian cabinet. We had a speech by the new Prime Minister of the Palestinians, calling for an end to terrorism and almost immediately followed by a terrorism attack.

Let me ask you something. Do you know Mahmoud Abbas?

SP: Yes.

RC: And do you think he’s up to this incredible challenge that he’s outfaced now?

SP: I think he is a very serious man. I think he means peace. It’s not an easy task, but if I would have the truth, somebody do the job, I would probably point out him as the best candidate.

RC: And do you think he has the authority to do the job?

SP: The authority doesn’t exist. You have to create it. Because the situation is broken into many small pieces. It’s very hard to collect them. It’s not that somebody has the authority and they can delegate it. He’s dealing with a non-existent situation. I think that Oliver Stone did an excellent film on the situation. It’s very hard to make a film on the solution. So before him is a very tough challenge.

RC: Now, let me go to the other side of the equation, that is Prime Minister Sharon. I assume you know him.

SP: Probably. (Laughter)

RC: Yeah, all right.

RC: He has talked about making painful sacrifices in order to implement the road map. One of them would be the dismantling of some settlements. There are some people who think that this is not a sincere statement. What do you think?

SP: I think when he says it he feels he is saying a sincere thing. The problem is he is ready to make painful enough concessions, to the point where he may endanger the existence of his government. But everybody lives in a cycle of limitations, nobody is a total master of the situation. I believe that if Sharon will have a chance he will try to do it. But I wouldn’t describe his government as the best chance to enable him to do it—the composition of the government.

Let me say one thing. You know, there are many things that happened. And to be fair, I at least among other people didn’t foresee them. I didn’t foresee that in 2003 we should have as our neighbor on the north the United States of America. It’s a surprise. When they started with the Palestinians I wasn’t sure that the person that was nominated as their finance minister will do an impressive job. He did. I wasn’t sure that Abu Massan(?) will be elected as prime minister. He was. It doesn’t mean that everything is promised and will go easy. So I wouldn’t be overly optimistic but clearly there is no room for pessimism. Things did happen that nobody has foresaw. We have to be modest enough to admit it.

My basic optimism is that all religions and all nations and all movements cannot ignore a new reality. We live in a new reality. But—the communism in Russia, we are not Americans, but a new age. What is changing, China is high tech, not a new ideology. But it’s forcing everybody to adopt a new position, it’s because there was a revolution in our existence. Since then, in the 20th century, we live no longer on our land, on our natural resources. We live on science and technology and for that you don’t need borders, sovereignties, you don’t need armies, you don’t need wars.

The present revolt is against modernity by Muslim people. They are afraid that modernity will kill the Muslim tradition. Where they are totally wrong is that under modern condition, Muslim tradition does not provide a living for their people. All of them are poor, backward, divided, belligerent, hopeless. And the problem is not with modernity, the problem is tradition. Sooner or later I believe that the young generation among the Muslims and Arabs will try to change their life so they will be able to exist and progress.

RC: If implementation of the road map has as a prerequisite the cessation of terrorism, do you think that Prime Minister Sharon will use a terrorist incident to keep delaying and delaying and delaying?

SP: Well, don’t’ forget I didn’t vote for Sharon, so I am not sure that I am his spokesman. (Laughter) But I would say that the difference would be that the condition that results from it is not that there would be 100 percent cessation of terror, 100 percent of effort by the Palestinians to stop terror. I am not sure that the Palestinians, even if they’ll be will be willing, can do it in a short while. So I will give them credit. You know, there are people in Israel trying to ... they think it has nothing to do with the Palestinians. It’s a lost case, like it was—in a way.

I feel differently. I think Jordan is basically made of Palestinian people. And with the Jordanians we live in fact in a peaceful relation. My aim, if I can describe it, is that we shall have the same relations with the Palestinians as we have with the Jordanians, who are Palestinians. I believe it’s obtainable, if we shall be patient enough, you know, Barak said “the moment of truth arrived.” Well, every moment is a moment of truth. I don’t know any single moment, that this is the moment of truth. With—maybe eternal moments are changing. And I believe that when you look not at the moments, but when you look at the wide march of time, I believe one can be optimistic.

RC: Let me ask you about another party instrumental in the road map, and that is the United States. Do you believe that there has been a sort of change within the administration, that it’s now going to sincerely apply pressure and be consistently attentive to the Middle East, or is this just a mood on the part of Bush and the State Department?

SP: I have much respect for President Bush and his policies. But again, I don’t think that Bush created the situation. I think the situation created the Bush policies. I think Bush was elected twice, once in November, hardly so, and then in September, fully so. In September the United States was attacked. It was not Bush that has attacked bin Laden. It was bin Laden that has attacked the United States of America. And America from my standpoint is on the policy of self defense. And you cannot, we cannot, nobody can, live with terrorists, knowing that one day may come, and it will be very soon, they will get—weapons, and dictators. It will make our life impossible. So really by and large the move is right. I think we have to stop the conflict with the Palestinians in order to encourage the fight against terrorism, not only on the merits of the case, which is also justified.

My mentor was Vangolian(?), the founder of the State of Israel, and the most important lesson I learned from him is that the highest degree of wisdom and the highest degree of pragmatism is the moral code. For us as a Jewish people, we should not dominate the life of the Palestinians. Not because just the Palestinians, but also because of us. It’s not what we want to be. We are forced to do things that we didn’t want to do. And we have to liberate ourselves on this dilemma. The sooner the better.

RC: Because we’re running late, I’m going to yield the rest of my time and turn to the audience. And I think you all know the drill. Just stand, use the microphone, state your name and your affiliation, and if you can, your compensation package. (Laughter) Be interesting and ask a quick question. Let’s start right here.

RP: Welcome back, Mr. Prime Minster to the Council. My name is Roland Paul, with Ivey, Barnum and O’Mara Law Firm. In the film, Mr. Prime Minister, you said that every ... we know what the price is for peace and we’ll have to pay it. I was waiting to hear what your answer is. Is that withdrawal from most of the settlements or is it some other answer?

SP: The price of peace, to specify it, is to have a Palestinian state. We don’t have a solution without a Palestinian state—the politician of the land. Something that was controversial in the policies of Israel because they couldn’t agree. Now they agree partially, not fully. We have to give them back the land in accordance with... which calls for a withdrawal from territories that we have occupied in the war in order to go back to recognize as their borders. We have to do it. You know, it’s algebra, but we can translate it in terms otherwise—we don’t understand the situation. I think we have to find a solution for Jerusalem that will answer the call of all the three religions.

I think we have to give the Palestinians full independence, to respect them, to live in peace and respect and self determination without arms, the militarists. And I think, you know, finally the differences are so small. They are bitter. They are stormy, they are penetrating, not in size, but in feelings. And I think what happened now in Iraq is a great contribution. Israel was living under two fears, one that we should be attacked by foreign armies, the Arab armies. This is beginning to disappear. With this, with Egypt in the South, with Jordan in the East, we have the United States changing courageously, and for the sake ... you know, let me say one thing.

If the United States will win completely, and I hope we will win completely, the war in Iraq, you know who will be the winner? The Arabians, the Arabs, the Muslims. They are not going to stay there. Whoever looks at the American history—you fought, you won, you gain land, you never remained at any place. You gave back completely everything, with the Marshall Plan.

So I think it’s a change now with the Palestinians, in spite of all the rhetorics. You know, war is an ugly experience. And you have many unacceptable events—and children. But the greatest mistake is not what happens during the war, but the war itself. We have to get rid of the major problem. So I believe that the differences will melt, the clouds are dispersed differently. There is a chance, and we shouldn’t miss it.

RC: Yes, Ma’am?

SN: Stephanie Newman, Columbia University. I was fascinated by the closing part of the film, when you talked about history, and you also talked about peace. I wondered whether or not past history doesn’t suggest that peoples never forget when they feel that their land has been unjustly taken from them. And so what does peace really mean for Israel in the long run? Can there be peace?

SP: I hope you are not a professor of history. (Laughter) I must be careful. People do forget. Look, we have done— remained through their history into our language and tradition. I mean, you have an Egyptian people. They don’t speak the Egyptian language. They don’t continue the Egyptian tradition. It’s a different land. The Greeks have changed, the Italians have changed. They are no longer the Romans. They don’t speak the Roman language.

So history is also changing. It’s imitation, not a repetition. And we cannot run history by going in reverse. The problem of history is the problem of the past. You cannot change the past. And to say you’re a member I’m afraid is a certain removal(?). People remember what to forget. They don’t remember what they should remember. So I would really dedicate our energies and our vision but for this spiritual side, which don’t forget—no. Today you don’t need wars.

It’s not important how many people killed Caesar, or how many people killed Napoleon, or how many elephants did have—in an age of helicopters. I’m not referring to the nose of Pierre Butler, which is totally irrelevant today, in an age of plastic surgery. (Laughter)... but the world is changing so fastly. And if you ask me, we are just in the beginning of the changes. I can foresee in 10, 15 years a totally different world. Totally. But to call today high technology, will be low technology. The high technology is now just coming with the nano technology. Until now we build a world from things that we saw or held or smelled. We are beginning to build a world from the unseen and non-held part of life.

I think our children are entitled to be free from the commitment of the past. You can live in territory, but forget about the spiritual territory. Don’t—on America, the United States of America. Can you go back? And why should you go back? It’s built a wonderful, powerful nation. What’s wrong? Do you have to go back to the Indians? Why? Can you? Can we? So let’s move ahead, and be human beings with differences.

RC: And the gentleman over there?

KA: I’m Khalid Azim with Morgan Stanley. Mr. Prime Minister, my question, sir, is also about history, if you were to go back to the beginning of Oslo, Sir, knowing what you know now, how would you do things differently?

SP: I would give the Palestinians more. You know? I would try to go straight to a state, not autonomy. I would charge them with more responsibility, contrary to what my people are saying. But when you negotiate for peace, you don’t negotiate with your opponent. You negotiate with your own people. Because victory of war unites the people. You win, you’re proud, you have heroes. Peace is made of compromises. You know, any happy person who became happy because of a compromise, said, My god, what did they give away? You know?

You are being accused all the time that you are giving away boundary, and to make too many concessions. But where is needed, courage and peacemaking is to go further than the popular world, and to be judged not by your people, but to be judged by the books of history.

Your audience for peace is the unborn generation. The born generation are extremely skeptical. But you cannot do by having the support of the unborn citizens. We have dozens of compromise with the people who vote for you. So when you make peace, it’s a compromise within a compromise. And I think it was very important, shall I say courageous, I don’t regret a moment. What I regret is that we couldn’t go further than we went.

RC: Let me just say the Palestinian state that you would offer, would its capital be Jerusalem? And how would Jerusalem be administered?

SP: Oh, you want to put me in—ahead of time. (Laughter) I would say the following. Jerusalem is the nation—respect. Jerusalem is made basically of two parts: the old Jerusalem, the historic Jerusalem, what they call the Holy Basin, and the new Jerusalem. The bible doesn’t have maps, by the way. In the modern Jerusalem you have more or less 18 suburbs. Eight of them are basically Arabs. Ten of them are basically Jewish. I would hand over the eight clearly to the Palestinians. And they can have their capital there. Even I believe that a good— would agree to it. None of them would like to have say 200,000 Palestinians... delegate battles with existing Israel. The ten would be part of Israel.

When it comes to the Holy Basin, including Temple Mount, including the Wailing Wall, I would give our political sovereignty and have only religious sovereignty. To be brief, namely that every religion will be sovereign over their holy places, to their own religion, and have a free access adjoined Israeli-Palestinian—unarmed, and let everybody pray the way you want.

RC: Thank you. Yes, the gentleman back there?

SB: Hi. Scott Berrie from Scojo Vision. Mr. Peres, you have been one of the greatest leaders, and will always be remembered that way. I have two questions. One is do you see any successors to your form of thinking and optimism, which is very hard to come by these days, in any of the future leadership in Israel? And how do you reconcile that kind of vision that you have with the fact that right after Oslo, the intelligence ability of the Israeli military defined to have the connections inside the territories were severely diminished by a lack of presence. So how do you compromise in your vision of autonomy still maintaining a certain degree of intelligence and connection to where the bomb-making is going on, et cetera?

SP: On the first question, I believe there are people who can become important leaders—generation. You know, in Israel I can recognize three generations. One was the pioneering generation, because Zionism was born with... have to go back to land and calculate it. But the greatest problem of Jewish life was the—homeland. Once we...second generation of military people, because we were attacked, not because we’re selected. And we produced an important generation of military people that are today running in a way the country.

Now we have a third generation coming up, and that is the scientific one. Because finally we shall live not on the land and not on war, but on science and technology. And I can see many of them are brilliant people and they will take over. They don’t have to continue, they have to change. Generally politicians shouldn’t reflect the situation, but should change it. What was your second question on ...

SP: Well, intelligence is important, not concerning the future. It’s important as far as the past is concerned and maybe the present. I imagine—my mentor was Ben Gurion and he used to say that all experts of things that did happen. We don’t have an expert for things that might happen. And while I read with great interest the reports of the intelligence they will never make up my mind what to do next. They don’t know as you don’t know, as I don’t know. And we don’t have to follow information. We have to create a world that didn’t yet inform us about its existence. So I don’t take their judgment. I’m not impressed by it. I’m impressed by intelligence. But I would never ask them to be my guide people in the future.

RC: Go ahead, yes?

LK: I want to say since nobody commented on the film that I thought it was ...

RC: Would you identify yourself?

LK: I’m sorry. Lucy Komisar, I’m a journalist. It was aesthetically very beautiful. It reminded me of sort of a reality TV, a journalist goes to Israel. I was very disappointed, and this is probably a factor of television, that there was actually no attention paid to the actual policy issues, the things that are on the negotiating table that are creating all this problem.

RC: Lucy, excuse me, do you have a question.

LK: And I wonder whether Mr. Peres, who already mentioned that there were some issues where there was closeness, could you say where there is an issue that’s closeness and what is the issue on...what is the position on this side and that side, that one might move those sides closer together and come to some solution?

SP: I think the two sides have to change their public opinion views, the public opinions of each other. I believe that Abu Massan more or less has a feeling what should be done on his side. He has the feeling, he doesn’t have the strength or the power. And it’s hard to propose how can he get it. We on our side should do it whether— we can. The same is also with Sharon, for Sharon it’s very difficult, to make peace as long as there is terror. Say, would the Palestinians reduce terror? Would Israel be more forthcoming in offering a political future for the Palestinians, we would help each other?

And, you know, television generally has its own vocation. It is brief, it is short, it gives equal time. It is not about the visibility. It has very little to do with invisibility. And if I have to comment television on one hand and criticize television on the other hand, I would say the value of television that it makes dictatorship almost impossible. The weak point it makes democracy almost intolerable. (Laughter) And the best show you could have seen, I mean, one of the greatest persons, in my judgment, so much to understand why dictatorship is impossible was the Minister of Information of Iraq. (Laughter) I mean, since Charlie Chaplin nobody did a better job (Laughter) in explaining why dictatorship is such a laughingstock. He did it. But you can’t expect that it will do everything. And by the way, we as viewers of television, who have to appreciate what we see, but we also criticize what it means.

RC: —ask Oliver Stone to stand up and identify yourself. (Laughter)

OS: I would like to ask you a more philosophical question. You seem resigned in a way and I’m curious about you personally. You came so close to winning the election. You lost. There is now a man in power, Mr. Sharon, and by a conjunction of events, Mr. Bush came to power, and there seems to be a strong relationship between the two men. If you had been elected, this whole dynamic would be different. Given now the results of Iraq 2, it seems that the stakes have even gone higher. Don’t you in moments feel that if not for a little bit of change in the wind or luck things would have been completely different today?

SP: Well, that’s an authentic question. (Laughter) And I have to ask myself real questions. And I ask myself the real question. I shall say very candidly that I feel that I have to do whatever I can to help Sharon to embark upon the role of this. So I disagree with him, and so I think he makes mistakes, but that’s what I can do. And I shall do it. Because if you cannot play a big role, don’t take—the opportunity to play a small role, or a medium-size role. I’m not—I think a man must have a sense of proportion, and if he wants to sell, he has to think about the matter he wants to sell, not about his own position. And I hope I shall be able to do it. (Applause)

HS: Henry Siegman, Council on Foreign Relations. There is a view that while the international community is busy with process and new plans and road maps and what have you, and even some speculate about scientific and economic changes that will transform the world, there are changes they can place on the ground that are transforming the—

SP: The what?

HS: That are transforming the West Bank, geographically and every other which way, to the point where pretty soon it will be impossible to realize the goals that you have just described, a genuine Palestinian state. There are also demographic changes coming about that have far-reaching consequences. Do you believe that this is a problem, that there is a tipping point? And if so, when do you think such a tipping point will be reached?

SP: You know, on the contrary, I can handle a democratic country where the government live in opposition. I don’t think the problem of the government is the opposition. I do believe the problem of the government is the reality. If the government will not agree to a Palestinian state and they will not make peace, all of a sudden they discover they have to pay an impossible economic cost. You cannot run away from history. The thing that history is a matter of only politics, only personalities, is wrong. There is a new age. And, you know, the world, in the 21st century, has very little to do with the 20th century. No longer is the world divided between East and West ideologically. Or North and South economically. It is divided between modernity and regression.

I mean, you cannot say the South is poor. Japan is not poor, South Korea is not poor, China is becoming rich, India is changing. The whole world is changing, because we are going through, in my judgment, one of the greatest revolutions in human annals. And that is instead of living off land, to live in science. Land is known, seen, but limited. Science is unknown and unlimited. And—it’ll be out of pace. The same goes for this present government.

No matter how many votes Sharon has received, if he will not answer the realities, he will not be able to run a government. Because nobody in the world is ready to pay for mistakes. You can get money for—but not for intrans— inconsigence. And for that I am basically very optimistic. I believe there is a young generation in Israel, there is a young generation among the Muslims and the Arabs. I wouldn’t look upon the Muslim as a frozen world. They cannot live in the past. Nobody will pay for it. And they are producing poverty and disappointment among their own people.

In a way, Iraq was an eye-opener to them as well. So I believe that even in Israel we shall have to adapt ourselves to the new age. We don’t have a choice. I have been a guest of the Prime Minister of Iceland and they made it very lovely after-dinner speech. He said, You are the chosen people, we are the frozen people. (Laughter) All of us have to be the chosen people. We cannot be the frozen people.

RC: It is my sad, sad duty to say that we’re out of time. That’s it for today. I just want to thank you very much for joining us. (Applause) Thank you all.