Israeli President Shimon Peres appeared on Morning Joe Wednesday and made some interesting statements, which for an impartial observer were difficult to reconcile with the history of that region and that enduring conflict. Additionally, by the tenor and line of the questioning, it was once again revealing how mainstream newsmedia folk defer to Israeli leaders as if they are infallible and above being challenged about their statements and judgment.

The Moring Joe “journalistic” group, each taking turns posing pre-scripted questions consisted of Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough, Willie Geist, and Mike Barnicle.    

Scarborough opened with this question “Let’s start with a New York Times story yesterday where a leader of Hamas said that they would be willing to engage in negotiations possibly and go back to 1967 borders. Is that a starting point?"

Shimon Perez: "That’s a starting point but you didn’t mention then, even then you won’t make peace with Israel. So what is the sense of all the story. Why to begin if it has a terrible end?  So this is just a way of putting it as nicely as you can but there is no change in the basic policy. Hamas is a religious organization not a political one. Religious people don’t compromise. Religious people don’t have a watch on their hands. Eternity is their time. They don’t see there is any real change in their character opposition."

That statement makes it clear that Peres is saying it’s fruitless to negotiate with Hamas, which should have elicited a follow-up question, asking--if there is no reason to negotiate with your principle antagonist, what chance is there for the peace process? And the next obvious question is, doesn’t this religious concept apply to Iran? And then there is the additional question of how strong is the Jewish religion’s influence on Israel’s long standing position of entitlement to Palestinian “Promise Land”?  And does it follow that Israel’s is also embracing an entrenched religious philosophy? Nevertheless, Shimon’s   assertion was allowed to go unchallenged and unexplored by the reverent panel.   

Next up was Mika Brzezinski, “I want to ask you about the possibility of a two state solution, which the administration is pushing for, is that the right thing for the future of Israel?”

Shimon Peres:  In my view, yes.

Mika Brzezinski: And why?

Simon Peres:  “because there is no alternative to it. If you make one nation without a clear majority it will be a nation divided deeper even though less formal. We have Lebanon, one nation or one state with two different groups. They don’t know a day of rest. You have Iraq. You have Sudan. You have Pakistan.  You know the fact that you call a people one nation doesn’t solve the problem. It’s better to let each group ethnic or religious to have their own identity and make peace and live in peace than rather fight for the majority or be suspicious about that about.”

That statement reveals the thinking of one of Israel’s longtime prominent leaders. He talks about Lebanon “not knowing a day of rest.” However, I don’t believe Israel has been living in tranquility while Lebanon has been experiencing their period of turmoil. Yet this questionable point among others made by Peres was again allowed to go unexplored.

Scarborough followed with, “you met with Secretary Clinton and President Obama, did you express your concerns about overtures to Iran?"

Simon Peres: I didn’t have much because both of them they say they will do whatever they can that Iran will not become a nuclear power. The differences about that means and President Obama says I want to start with engagement and says let me try, why not?  If he will succeed it will be our success. If it will fail I’m sure he will think about alternatives. But finally what we want is that Iran will not be a danger to the middle east, to the Arabs to the  Jewish State, to the world. It’s a combination of fanatic rulers, enrich uranium, terror, and a colonial ambition. They want to be the hegemony of the Arab world. For the first time most of the word are Sunnites are supporting Israel more than Iran.

Up until this point the questions have had a decidedly solicitous pro-Israel anti-American tone, an “is our President doing what you want him to do” angle. Mike Barnicle poses the question Dick Cheney has made famous.

Mike Barnicle ask: “Many Americans regard our war with Iraq as a war of choice, so my question to you, is Israel safer today as a result of our war with Iraq?”

Simon Peres:  “Not necessarily Israel. I think the rest of the Arab world Look.  If some body would topple down Hitler as the United States has toppled down Sadam Hussein  you would save million and millions of lives. Unfortunately, the attitude of Europe in the early days of Hitler was totally irresponsible. If they would stop him in the early steps, you wouldn’t have the second war. You wouldn’t have three millions people being killed, hundred million people being wounded with one leg, one hand, God knows what. And I think it was courageous on the part of president Bush to topple him down. He would continue if you wouldn’t do it to go from Kuwait  and try to  conquer  Saudi Arabia. Would he conquer Saudi Arabia the whole Middle-East would be  a hell. So we have to be fair better him loosing his life than millions of people living in danger."

Barnicle: But is your whole neighborhood the Middle-East calmer today, safer today, because of the war with Iraq?
Peres: Yes
Barnicle: It is?
Peres: I mean without Sadam Hussein the Middle-East is safer… hundred percent.

This is a perfect example of where Israel and America’s interest are not the same. To quote Daniel Benjamin writer for TIME magazine, America has shown itself to be good at hunting terrorists. Unfortunately, by occupying Iraq, it has become even better at creating them.

Obviously creating more terrorist does not make America safer. In his eagerness to compliment George Bush’s invasion of Iraq  Peres is asking us to ignore the unintended consequence of Iran emerging as the preeminent power in the region aided by our  eliminating the checking power of Sadam to which, just moments earlier Peres had alluded. His concern that Sadam was about to attack Saudi Arabia is not supported by the facts.  

Joe Scarborough played an excerpt from a statement Vice President Joe Biden made a few days earlier before AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobbying group. He then read the statement for Peres response,  “do not build more settlements, dismantle existing outpost and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement based on their first actions, access to economic opportunity and increased security, this is a show me deal not based on faith, show me. That’s quite a challenge to Israel.”  
Peres: why? I feel like him.
Scarborough: (taken aback) What’s that?
Peres: I feel like him.. Israel has committed herself not to build more new settlements. And the present new government under Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu said we are going to abide the commitment of the previous government. The previous government says there won’t be new settlements and Mr. Netanyahu says we are going to do what ever we can to help develop the west bank, to facilitate the movement of the Palestinian people, help them build an economy. Look, the better they will have it the better neighbors we should have. We don’t look to see anybody suffering. Why on the contrary. So if Vice-President  Biden says, for me I don’t need the urge. It’s normal.

Mike Barnicle: "What do you say, Mr. President, to the Palestinian population, who as you accurately describe, part of what fuels this ongoing tension, war, violence, and death is a level of fanaticism which is incomprehensible to many civilized people. And yet what do you say to the Palestinian people who feel so disposed, so without anything, without property, without income, without hope for the future?"

Peres: "I say around the negotiating table you will achieve more than on the battlefield.. What Egypt or Jordan lost on the battlefield they won at the negotiations.  And we say we don’t want to govern anyone. We don’t want to see you downward, insulted, discriminated. It’s against everything that we stand for. Look, you can not understand, as far as I’m concerned, the Israeli mind without considering the moral foundation is the foundation of our existence. Not everything is politics. And we don’t want to govern other people. We don’t want to occupy land which is not ours. We want to be a contributing people .Not oppressing people. And we think our strength is more moral and intellectual than physical or military."

The history of the conflict belies the passivity and moral restraint Peres attributes to the Israeli government. The uninterrupted seizing of land with the confiscatory  laws designed specifically to facilitate the seizures and the building of settlements is a matter of record.  
 
The seizing of land is at the core of the Palestinian resistance and the basis for the occupation and oppression. But as far as the American newsmedia is concerned, it’s the Israeli narrative that is reported. This is the one world conflict where the “bad guys” are the people resisting occupation and oppression.

At the close of the interview, Peres said something that offered some hope for a peaceful outcome. He described how in the case of  Menachem Begin who had swore he would never give up the Sinai back to Egypt. But after Sadat visited Israel the whole thing changed and the reality of the situation ultimately prevailed Begin made a courageous decision which resulted in the peace agreement with Egypt.
 
He was then  asked by Mike Barnicle if Netanyahu has the same strength and courage as Begin Peres answered:
Peres: "I think the world has the same potential upon all of us. Israel can not divorce reality, Israel cannot mis support unities, Israel cannot ignore the basic philosopher. Benjamin Netanyahu wants to make history. You cannot make history without making peace. You know Begin wasn’t for a very long time Prime Minister. There was another Prime Minister that was for seven years. He did nothing. So what? Why should you be Prime Minister if you do nothing?  Don’t count the years. Take into consideration the choices the resolution. There was one Prime Minister in the world that was prime Minister for just three months and nobody forget him—Mendes France. It’s not the duration, it is the decision that counts."