BUSH MEETS WITH BIBI AFTER ALL

Bush Meets With Opposition Head Netanyahu
(IsraelNN.com) US President George W. Bush decided to meet Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu after initially leaving him out of his itinerary.

After recriminations from Netanyahu associates and claims that Bush was snubbing the former prime minister, US Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones called Netanyahu’s office Wednesday to invite him to meet with Bush Thursday morning at Jerusalem's King David Hotel. At their meeting, Netanyahu told Bush, "Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity."

The central subject discussed by the two was the Iranian threat. Netanyahu expressed appreciation for Bush's role in defending the free world from radical Islamic terror. Former Netanyahu advisor Michael Freund issued a plea to Bush to take military action against the "Tyrant of Tehran" to stop his atomic pursuit.

BUSH SNUBS BIBI

Bush Snubs Netanyahu on Israel Visit (INN)
U.S. President George W. Bush is refusing to meet with Likud Opposition Leader Binyamin Netanyahu, or anyone else opposed to the Annapolis process.

NETANYAHU: 1, BOSTON GLOBE: 0

Our Hopeful Step, Your Foolishly Unilateral Withdrawal (WSJ-BOTW)
Yesterday we noted [ED. SEE MY POST HERE] that the Boston Globe was blaming Israel--and in particular "Ariel Sharon's foolishly unilateral withdrawal" from Gaza in 2005--for Hamas's violent takeover of Gaza. Blogger Harry Forbes notes that in 2005, the Globe sang quite a different tune:

To argue, as Benjamin Netanyahu did in resigning from the Cabinet, that disengagement from Gaza would create "a giant base for terrorism" is to argue that there should never be a two-state solution to the conflict. Denying Palestinians a homeland has been counterproductive for both peoples. Denying them even the hope of a homeland would be a road map to war everlasting.

Another protest frequently voiced by the Israeli right is that the withdrawal, scheduled to begin on Wednesday, only rewards Palestinian militants for the second intifadah--five years of attacks and other violent resistance to Israeli control. But this stance is backward-looking and self-defeating. . . .

Begun as a unilateral move announced by Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the step has since attracted a level of coordination that is encouraging on its own terms. . . . The settlements have often been called facts on the ground. The withdrawal from
Gaza, if successful, will be another important fact.

Well, at least the Globe wasn't wrong about everything. There is no denying that the withdrawal from Gaza is an important fact.

INTERVIEW WITH NETANYAHU

HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM A FINANCIAL TIMES INTERVIEW WITH ISRAEL'S NEXT PRIME MINISTER, BIBI NETANYAHU:

FT: Does the fear many Arab regimes feel for Iran create a strategic opportunity for Israel?

BN: Categorically yes.

FT: How do you see that working?

BN: I think what it means is that if you broaden the search for a Palestinian-Israeli peace from two players to, say, four and you involve Jordan and Egypt in creative ways then you can probably resolve some of the problems – an example would be tackling a major problem the Palestinians have, which is instituting law and order in their own cities and streets and preventing the spillage of violence into their own homes and into ours. Clearly, they need assistance. Some kind of federated or confederated effort between Jordan and the Palestinians might introduce that function of security and peace.

FT: Does this apply to Gaza as well?

BN: That’s the point. We have to get our sights focused on a broader approach. Right now it’s all a zero-sum game. Israel is supposed to be constricted on its narrowest part, shut its eyes, hope for good and pray. And that doesn’t work out for Israelis or Palestinians. But if you look at this puzzle both in terms of territory and in terms of security functions and of course economic functions and transport, if you look at it at least with four players then there are many, many more opportunities and I intend to propose concrete plans along these dimensions.

FT: Do you see Saudi Arabia as a potentially helpful participant?

BN: It could be. But I don’t think the Saudi plan is necessarily what I am talking about. The Saudi plan is traditional Arab demands of Israel returning to the indefensible six-day lines and being prepared to negotiate on its own dissolution, on the so-called right of return of the so-called Arab refugees, and that’s not helpful.

A much better approach would be to base territorial negotiations on [United Nations Resolution] 242. I remember this from Madrid – the Madrid peace process – and 242 is a good starting point. But if the idea is to get an Arab consensus on the idea that Israel has a right to exist and that no more demands will be made on it after the end of the negotiations, this is a move forward. I am not sure the Saudi plan has this goal truly built into it. It is too traditional an Arab demand.

FT: The crucial thing is to get the right of return out of the negotiation?

BN: Get rid of it: off the table. My existence is not something to be negotiated, the existence of my country is not negotiable, neither is Britain’s, neither is Belgium’s, or any country’s.

READ THE WHOLE THING. BIBI TALKS ABOUT THE ISRAELI ECONOMY, THE WAR ON TERROR AND LAST YEAR'S WAR IN LEBANON.

VIDEO: NETANYAHU BREAKS IT DOWN

DO YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES? IF SO, WATCH BIBI NETANYAHU EXPLAIN THE REALITIES OF THE MIDDLE EAST, THE SLURRING OF JEWS AS NAZIS AND THE DANGER FROM IRAN.