NBC: 4 arrested in plot to bomb NYC targets
Suspects were under heavy surveillance, authorities say

WASHINGTON - Four men have been arrested in a plot to attack several targets in the New York City area, including synagogues, federal and local authorities told NBC News Wednesday.

Authorities said the four men have long been under investigation and there was little danger they could actually have carried out their plan, NBC's Pete Williams reported.

Investigators say the four, described as Black Muslims from the Bronx, had planned to place bombs at various targets. But New York city police and federal agents got wind of the plot and kept the men under careful surveillance.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

In fact, officials say, the men recently bought what they thought were explosives, which they put in storage lockers outside the city. But what the men did not know is that the material they bought was actually harmless, sold to them by informants posing as explosives dealers.

Officials emphasize that the men never had actual bombs and could not have pulled off any attack.

Two years ago, two Muslims pleaded guilty to plotting to attack synagogues in Los Angeles. But officials said that they knew of no connection between those arrests and this latest plot in New York.

This breaking news story will be updated.

Peace isn't Arab goal

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 20, 2009

WHO FAVORS a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

President Obama does, of course, as he made clear in welcoming Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday. So does former president George W. Bush, who began advocating Palestinian statehood in 2002 and continued until his final days in office. The Democratic Party's national platform endorses a two-state solution; the Republican platform does, too. The UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed its support a few days ago, and the European Union is strongly in favor as well.

Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian state during his recent visit to the Holy Land, thereby aligning himself - on this issue, at least - with the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. And, for that matter, with most Israelis. A new poll shows 58 percent of the Israeli public backing a two-state solution; prominent supporters include Netanyahu's three predecessors - former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak - as well as president Shimon Peres.

The consensus, it would seem, is overwhelming. As Henri Guaino, a senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, put it on Sunday: "Everyone wants peace. The whole world wants a Palestinian state."

It isn't going to happen.

International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.

In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." It recommended a two-state solution - a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. "Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace," the commission reported. "No other plan does."

But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him "a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."

In 1947, the Palestinians were again presented with a two-state proposal. Again they spurned it. Like the Peel Commission, the United Nations concluded that only a division of the land into adjacent states, one Arab and one Jewish, could put an end to the conflict. On Nov. 29, 1947, by a vote of 33-13, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine on the basis of population. Had the Arabs accepted the UN decision, the Palestinian state that "the whole world wants" would today be 61 years old. Instead, the Arab League vowed to block Jewish sovereignty by waging "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."

Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs' notorious response: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."

At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel's history.

To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel's liquidation. "The whole world" may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different. Until that changes, there is no two-state solution.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com

New Palestinian government takes flak from Hamas, Fatah

New Palestinian Government Sworn In
By VOA News 19 May 2009

A new Palestinian government in the West Bank has been sworn in. The new cabinet took the oath of office Tuesday at Palestinian Authority headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

The government consists of about two dozen ministers and is composed mainly of members of the Palestinian faction Fatah - but none from its rival Hamas.

Hamas officials on Tuesday called the new government "illegal" and said it poses an obstacle to reconciliation talks between the two factions.

Officials say Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will maintain his position in the new government and will head the cabinet.

Ramallah: Fatah debates ban of new Palestinian government

05.20.09

The Fatah faction is currently convened in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Ramallah office, to discuss in motion to ban the new Palestinian government, headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Fayyad's government was sworn in on Tuesday, sans Fatah members in attendance. Fatah ordered its delegates to the Palestinian Parliament not to serve under Fayyad. (Ali Waked)

Detailed Analysis of Obama-Netanyahu Meeting/Part 2 What Netanyahu Said

By Barry Rubin

Obviously, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s job was to make a good impression including the flattery of President Barack Obama. He thus thanked him:

“For your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader--a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.”

But this is more than flattery. Netanyahu is defining him as a great leader in part because he is a great friend of Israel. In other words, he is locking him in on his commitments to what Obama called an “extraordinary relationship.” This is the standard which the American president has set for the relationship and Netanyahu will hold him to it.

He also wants to define common interests: “We share the same goals and we face the same threats.” This happens to be true though it may take some time for Obama to recognize it.

Netanyahu also wants to stake out his own identity as a peacemaker:

“The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples.”

But how is peace to be obtained? Who is the common enemy?

A. The Iran issue

“In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.”

This is broadening out the threat beyond Israel to encompass U.S. interests and those of moderate Arab regimes, as I have long argued.

So Netanyahu reinforced what he wanted to, without mentioning the engagement part:

“So in that context, I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.”

B. Israel-Palestinian Negotiations

On this issue, Netanyahu stressed his eagerness to cooperate, his “desire to move the peace process forward.” Indeed, he was ready to move very fast: “And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could….”

Here came Netanyahu’s most quoted lines, which should be quoted fully:

“I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel. And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well. If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if those conditions are met, Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy, its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace.”

Here is Netanyahu’s view of the two-state solution. If the Palestinians meet Israeli conditions, then there will be the “side by side” arrangement Obama has raised.

This is critical: a two-state solution is not something given as a present at the beginning of negotiations, it is a reward for the proper compromises that enable such a peace to succeed.

That is the key point of the Israeli position, regarding not just Netanyahu but in practice across much of the political spectrum.

Netanyahu fully recognizes the interrelationship of issues and says both are important:

“It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement.”

And so he concludes, “We see exactly eye to eye on this—that we want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts: the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.”

Many might view this as papering over differences but it really isn’t. The point Netanyahu makes is that the two countries agree in principle whatever differences there are on details. And after all, this is the same basic position Obama has stated, though there is a bit of reversal on apparent priorities.

And then Netanyahu raises another key Israeli point: It is quite possible to make things far worse:

“If we end up with another Gaza -- the President has described to you there’s rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don’t want to happen, because a terror base next to our cities that doesn’t call -- recognize Israel’s existence and calls for our destruction and asks for our destruction is not arguing peace.

“If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, if they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security and peace and I add prosperity, because I’m a great believer in this.”

What is the point, after all, of pushing through a two-state solution which:

--Makes Palestine a radical Islamist state tied to Iran and Syria.

--Creates a Palestine in which every school, mosque, and media institution teaches Palestinians that all of Israel is theirs and they must strive to conquer it. This would be a Palestine full of incitement to violence against Israelis which will inspire scores of people to become terrorists and thousands of others to support them.

--Sets off a new Israel-Palestine cross-border war, with the Palestine government either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.

--Creates a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or gets missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.

--Extends the conflict another generation by using the state as a base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel.
And if Israel were to take risks and make concessions will they be reciprocated? And if the United States and Europe makes promises to Israel will they be kept?

After all, the 1990s’ peace process taught Israelis the answer was “no” on both counts.

This is Israel’s central point: peace, yes, but only a real, lasting, and stable situation which makes things better rather than worse.

A two-state solution only if it isn’t a two-mistake anti-solution
--------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

Detailed Analysis of the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting/Part 1: Obama’s Statement

By Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org. May 19, 2009

So what did President Barack Obama say after the meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and what does it mean?

First, Obama went to great lengths to stress his belief in the special relationship between the two countries, knowing his fealty to it has been (understandably and rightfully) challenged. He consciously escalated it by calling it an “extraordinary relationship” adding “historical ties, emotional ties,” “only true democracy of the Middle East,” “a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.” He then went on to say Israel’s security “is paramount” in his policy.

No signal to Arab regimes or Iran here of eroding support. This is the part they will look at and he knew it. This is not mere boiler plate. By setting the bar so high he is saying that the relationship is central and important, one not to be lightly undermined. That doesn’t mean he won’t do anything in that direction but it is publicly limiting himself from making any fundamental shift.

Of course, he and his administration can, and will, justify things they do as being for Israel’s own good. But again, opening with this statement is important and very purposeful.

A. The Iran Issue

He then focused on “the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.” Some have focused on his following remark that Netanyahu “has been very vocal in his concerns about” this as if Obama was being sarcastic, but he added this “is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and women across the political spectrum.” In other words, he is associating America’s stance with this view.

A key word, of course, is “potential.” Does this mean he doesn’t believe Tehran is trying to get nuclear weapons? No, but he is arguing that the outcome is still open, that is his belief he can talk them out of it.
That, of course, is a mistake.

But Obama added:

“Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.”
That’s a pretty strong statement. He then spoke of how the United States will try to talk Iran out of doing this without foreclosing tougher actions in future.

Whatever concerns one has about this—and I have them—this is the best possible statement one could have expected out of this American president. Remember he is not just talking to Netanyahu but to the Iranian regime and the whole region in so defining the U.S. stance.

Obama even added:

“The one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, of least, of negotiation with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through. And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon. That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.”

Here, he is saying he isn’t naïve and won’t let Iran fool him. Whether that’s true in practice remains to be seen but at least he is aware of this issue.

On another issue, however, he still doesn’t get it, asked whether his efforts at talking and compromising might be perceived by America’s enemies as weakness he responded:

“Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.”

Unfortunately, this shows he doesn’t understand the Middle East. His basic mantra is: toughness has been tried and hasn’t worked so let’s try being nice. If Obama is ever going to avoid disaster in the region, much less accomplish anything, he’s going to have to get beyond this simple-minded concept.

B. Israel-Palestinian

On Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama said it was in everyone’s interest “to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.”

I think the way this was phrased is very important. The great majority of Israelis can agree—even Netanyahu, in my opinion, would do so—that a two-state solution that really worked would be a good outcome.

The problem is that most Israelis don’t believe at this point that a two-state solution would work because the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and other forces either would ensure it never came about in the first place or would be quickly destabilized.

So the way Obama put it—and it was deliberate—is not in contradiction to Israeli views and interests.
Note also how he phrased his discussion of something else:

“Those obligations [of both sides] were outlined in the road map; they were discussed extensively in Annapolis.”

Remember that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was criticized for saying that Israel adhered to the road map but not to Annapolis. This position accepts that view. The road map presents the obligations; Annapolis is non-binding, a mere discussion. That phrasing was very deliberate.

And then of course Obama added that everyone should seize this opportunity for progress and mentioned five specific points, a list weighted in Israel’s favor: assures Israel’s security, stops terrorism and rocket attacks, and economic development for the Palestinians (which is Netanyahu’s emphasis) along with having an independent Palestinian state.

Indeed, Obama went even further in accommodating Netanyahu’s standpoint. He did not only—despite what I have read in some analyses—talk about Israeli concessions or obligations but also very much about Palestinian ones, his:

“Recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.”

This is something extremely important and he even said that he would convey this point to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the PA, when he visited Washington.

On Israel’s side he said settlements have to be stopped—though there are no new settlements or expanding of settlements in territorial terms, a point that often is forgotten. There has to be reconstruction of Gaza along with an end to rocket attacks, which means a loosening of border controls.

This is not so difficult for Israel to accomplish: close down some outposts, remove new settlement efforts, and revise the border controls on Gaza. These are all things Netanyahu is quite prepared to do to maintain good relations with the United States.

Another important point on which Obama just doesn’t get it because of lack of knowledge about the Middle East regards linkage:

“To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat….Imagine how much less mischief a Hezbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief, and vice versa.”

As I have explained elsewhere, such efforts would actually strengthen Iran, Hizballah and Hamas because any compromise agreement—even assuming such a thing were to be possible—would inflame radicalism. Again, failing to understand that, Obama doesn’t get the Middle East….Yet, at least.
Overall, though, the meeting was a success. It is important to emphasize that this was not just true on the atmospherics or the surface. Obama’s original ideology and the original intentions of his administration have been modified by taking into account Israel’s views and interests as well as some touch of reality about the region.
In other respects, it has not been so modified. The needle has moved from “catastrophic” to “very bad” on the region in general, and from “confrontational” to “pretty good” on the bilateral U.S.-Israel front. The rest depends on whether the administration insists on putting the priority on its ideas or on its experiences in future.

Transcript of the Obama and Netanyahu press conference

Commentary: Decoding Bibi and Barack

Netanyahu on Iran: Israel has the right to defend itselfPublished: 05.18.09, 23:27 / Israel News

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran. Netanyahu's statement was made to Israeli reporters in Washington following the prime minister's meeting with US President Barack Obama. (Yitzhak Benhorin, WASHINGTON)

Obama: No deadline on talks to stop Iran nuclear program
May. 18, 2009 Hilary Leila Krieger and Jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

The United States will not adhere to "artificial deadlines" when negotiating to end Teheran's nuclear ambitions, but talks must not be an excuse for inaction, and that tougher sanctions may be imposed to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama said following a meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House.

"I believe that it is not only in interest of the international community [that Iran cease its nuclear activities,]" Obama told reporters following the meeting. "I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons. It would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it would destabilize the region."

"Iran can achieve security, international respect, and prosperity for its people through other means," the president promised. "I'm prepared to make what I think to be a persuasive argument [regarding this matter]."

However, the United States would not continue talks with Iran forever, Obama said, and even as he suggested that America would assess its policy of engagement by the end of the year to see if progress has been made.

In his remarks, Netanyahu praised the president's remarks on Iran, saying that he appreciated the American "commitment on the matter."

"The worst danger we face is that Iran develops nuclear capabilities," the premier said. "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by our standards. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would put us all in peril."

Both leaders also talked about the importance of continuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Obama stressed the need for a "two-state solution," a phrase that Netanyahu pointedly did not use in his own remarks. For his part, the prime minister said that "the terminology would take care of itself," and talked about two peoples living side-by-side in peace, never mentioning, however, a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu said that "compromise" would be necessary from both sides, and that Israel is willing to take those steps.

Asked about recent comments by Israeli officials who stated that progress with the Palestinians was contingent on progress with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama said he saw the issue of linkage the other way around. He suggested that improvement with the Israel-Palestinian conflict would make it easier to enlist broader support with the international community to keep Iran from acquiring weapons, but nodded his head when Netanyahu added that neither country was linking the policy between the two issues.

Obama called the meeting, which was extended well beyond its originally scheduled time, "extraordinarily productive."