Thai Airways soars with ‘plane’-tastic gourmet menus for all classes

[webfact]

US plays down embassy relocation plans in Israel

 

 

WASHINGTON: -- During the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s team spoke often about moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but since taking office the contentious issue appears to have been put on the backburner.

 

Ahead of phone-call between Trump and the Israeli prime minister on Sunday, the White House did not respond to questions or requests to elaborate on initial discussions.

 

The reason could be because of the move’s potential destabilising effects on the peace process.

 

If the US were to relocate its embassy, it would be explicit recognition of Jerusalem belonging to Israel, preempting the results of any talks on a two-state solution.

 

The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has already criticised the prospect of such an outcome, warning it could be explosive for the region.

 

Speaking in Ramallah last week he said: 

“We hope (Trump) will not move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because Jerusalem from the Israeli point of view is a united city and this is not correct and illegal. Therefore, moving the embassy to any place will damage the peace process.”

 

The Israeli prime minister’s Arab media spokesman Ofir Gendelman refused to be answer euronews’ questions on the subject.

 

But Lenny Ben-David, Israel’s former Washington diplomat and now head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, played down the move as threat to the peace process.

 

“Trump will not waver, will not stop the law from being enacted, that’s the issue. Do I think he will do it? I believe he will,” said Ben-David. “It may actually be a process, a gradual process to bring that about. I don’t see it as an attempt to anger the Arab world or Palestinian. It need not hurt the peace process, but it gives the Palestinians an impetus to move ahead and say ‘we will negotiate over east Jerusalem’ rather than saying ‘we’re declaring war’.”

 

The incoming US ambassador has told Israeli media he intends to live in Jerusalem, but shifting the entire embassy with all its security, trade and cultural ties certainly won’t happen overnight.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2017-01-24

[pmarlin]

More fake news from Europe. News services in the US say otherwise. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/23/trump-moving-on-nafta-wont-release-tax-returns-wh-closer-to-moving-embassy-to-jerusalem.html

[Enoon]

3 hours ago, pmarlin said:

More fake news from Europe. News services in the US say otherwise. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/23/trump-moving-on-nafta-wont-release-tax-returns-wh-closer-to-moving-embassy-to-jerusalem.html

 

Can you think of a better way for Trump to stoke the fires of anti-US resentment, and increase the vulnerability of US citizens the world over, than to put the US embassy in Jerusalem?

 

The "preliminary discussions" are within the circle of his "doctors" and "medical orderlies" about how best to restrain him.

 

PS Nice to see "MSM" stalwarts Associated Press contributing to the article.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Enoon

[geriatrickid]

34 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

Can you think of a better way for Trump to stoke the fires of anti-US resentment, and increase the vulnerability of US citizens the world over, than to put the US embassy in Jerusalem?

 

The "preliminary discussions" are within the circle of his "doctors" and "medical orderlies" about how best to restrain him.

 

PS Nice to see "MSM" stalwarts Associated Press contributing to the article.

 

 

 

The resentment against the USA is already there by the people who would undertake the violence. The USA could declare Koran day and  broadcast the Koran on every  media outlet and  these people would would still be unhappy,  The move of the embassy changes nothing except it sends a message to the arabs to start discussing a two state solution in good faith. What this does, along with the settlements issue is send a clear message to the arabs to sit down and agree to some borders once and for all. They just keep dragging it out and out in an attempt to get more. Arafat walked away from a deal that gave him almost all that he had demanded. They could have cut a deal under Clintom then Bush and then Obama. If anyone was neutral and more partial to the arabs, it was Obama, and still they pissed on Obama's leg after all he had done for them including  taking flack from Israel.

[KenKadz]

There is no "peace process", there is only rhetorical dialog that both sides use to imply that a peace process is taking place, while both side manipulate World governments/bureaucrats into providing more financial contributions.

Politicians in the U.S.A. buy into this ploy in every conflict they become involved in, while they piss away their citizen's monies supporting the current messiah of the month.

[sanemax]

Bit of a non-story this 

Trump will want to speak to the Israeli PM before deciding what to do .

 

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

the contentious issue appears to have been put on the backburner.

This may have been influenced by Tillerson who was just approved by the US Senate Committee as Secretary of State and expected to have approval soon by the full Senate. Tillerson was not Bibi's best choice or even 3rd choice for SoS.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The resentment against the USA is already there by the people who would undertake the violence. The USA could declare Koran day and  broadcast the Koran on every  media outlet and  these people would would still be unhappy,  The move of the embassy changes nothing except it sends a message to the arabs to start discussing a two state solution in good faith. What this does, along with the settlements issue is send a clear message to the arabs to sit down and agree to some borders once and for all. They just keep dragging it out and out in an attempt to get more. Arafat walked away from a deal that gave him almost all that he had demanded. They could have cut a deal under Clintom then Bush and then Obama. If anyone was neutral and more partial to the arabs, it was Obama, and still they pissed on Obama's leg after all he had done for them including  taking flack from Israel.

>>The move of the embassy changes nothing except it sends a message to the arabs to start discussing a two state solution in good faith. What this does, along with the settlements issue is send a clear message to the arabs to sit down and agree to some borders once and for all. They just keep dragging it out and out in an attempt to get more. 
...what an amazing ability you have to call black white. The exact opposite of your statement is the actual truth.

 

The Palestinians have agreed long ago to recognize Israel roughly in the 67 green line borders with some land swaps, and to share Jerusalem as their capital too. Please could you point to any map that shows Israel's actual borders. They keep expanding and they have never defined them. Nor have they ever reciprocated in recognizing Palestinians' right to exist in a Palestinian state.

 

That is why this embassy move is indeed a huge game changer. It would be tantamount to recognition by Trump of Israel's total annexation of Jerusalem thus undermining any hope of Palestinians having their capital in East Jerusalem, one of the main conditions for a two state solution.

 

Maybe that is why we are currently witnessing yet another flip flop on the move. Despite it being supposedly a "big priority" for Trump, someone must have whispered in his ear about the consequences.

Edited January 24, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

10 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The resentment against the USA is already there by the people who would undertake the violence. The USA could declare Koran day and  broadcast the Koran on every  media outlet and  these people would would still be unhappy,  The move of the embassy changes nothing except it sends a message to the arabs to start discussing a two state solution in good faith. What this does, along with the settlements issue is send a clear message to the arabs to sit down and agree to some borders once and for all. They just keep dragging it out and out in an attempt to get more. Arafat walked away from a deal that gave him almost all that he had demanded. They could have cut a deal under Clintom then Bush and then Obama. If anyone was neutral and more partial to the arabs, it was Obama, and still they pissed on Obama's leg after all he had done for them including  taking flack from Israel.

The whole spiel about the Israeli illegal settlements being a bargaining chip is bogus. More a US right wing talking point than anything else. Their ongoing construction is not aimed as means to apply pressure, but as a way to create facts "on the ground", which will make conflict resolution more complex (or from supporters point of view, impossible).

 

The same, to a lesser degree, is true with regard to the proposal to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. It will not motivate the Palestinians, never mind the "Arabs" into making peace. Rather it sends a signal that this US administration talks before it thinks.

 

Intransigence and dealing with less than good faith can be attributed to either side in the conflict. If anything, this will promote more of the same.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

This may have been influenced by Tillerson who was just approved by the US Senate Committee as Secretary of State and expected to have approval soon by the full Senate. Tillerson was not Bibi's best choice or even 3rd choice for SoS.

Indeed, and probably even more to the point with regard to Mattis. Would be interesting to see how their word weighs against Trump's son-in-law's.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>The move of the embassy changes nothing except it sends a message to the arabs to start discussing a two state solution in good faith. What this does, along with the settlements issue is send a clear message to the arabs to sit down and agree to some borders once and for all. They just keep dragging it out and out in an attempt to get more. 
...what an amazing ability you have to call black white. The exact opposite of your statement is the actual truth.

 

The Palestinians have agreed long ago to recognize Israel roughly in the 67 green line borders with some land swaps, and to share Jerusalem as their capital too. Please could you point to any map that shows Israel's actual borders. They keep expanding and they have never defined them. Nor have they ever reciprocated in recognizing Palestinians' right to exist in a Palestinian state.

 

That is why this embassy move is indeed a huge game changer. It would be tantamount to recognition by Trump of Israel's total annexation of Jerusalem thus undermining any hope of Palestinians having their capital in East Jerusalem, one of the main conditions for a two state solution.

 

Maybe that is why we are currently witnessing yet another flip flop on the move. Despite it being supposedly a "big priority" for Trump, someone must have whispered in his ear about the consequences.

As usual, overdoing it. Black might not be white, but that doesn't make white black.

 

Whatever the Palestinian agreed to was not "long ago", or at least not after decades of rejectionism. This can't be swept under the carpet and be ignored as a factor in their predicament. Whatever you imagine the Palestinian agreed to was not a final status actually a final status agreement, and they had their share of backing down, not fully living up to agreements and general intransigence. 

 

With regard to your standing talking point about Israel's borders - the usual reply: Israel got an agreed upon border with two of its neighbors (Egypt, Jordan), an almost agreed upon border with a third (Lebanon). So to say its borders were never defined is obviously wrong. The borders with Syria and the future state of Palestine are not agreed upon. Most of the world, and most agreements discussed refer to the 1967 lines as a baseline, with some alteration. There are also various versions as to how the border between Jordan and the future state of Palestine will be managed. Other than its unrecognized annexation of East Jerusalem, Israel did not, as far as the Palestinians go, officially expanded it's borders.

 

Under no agreement was Israel required to recognize a Palestinian State. That's another bogus talking point you raise from time to time. In fact, any possible peace agreement will not result in a Palestinian State which will have full powers and rights - that's not a question of right and wrong,  just how it is. Needless to say, the current Palestinian leaderships do not see eye to eye on these issues and that's another thing you try to gloss over.

 

We are in agreement with regard to your last two paragraphs. It is indeed a wrong move at the wrong time, but again - there are signs that this too may be put aside.

[Jingthing]

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

This may have been influenced by Tillerson who was just approved by the US Senate Committee as Secretary of State and expected to have approval soon by the full Senate. Tillerson was not Bibi's best choice or even 3rd choice for SoS.

That's true. Tillerson is looked on suspiciously by Israel because of his long history of business dealings in the Arab / Muslim world where profit trumped any loyalty to Israel, which obviously at Exxon he had none. trump as we've come to expect giving out SCHIZOID signals. He loves to keep people on edge with his unpredictability. Now he gets to play act that on the world, for REAL. 

[Jingthing]

Push comes to shove, I don't think trump will really WANT to go through with the embassy move. But he will need some kind of face save to NOT do it. I think he could actually get away with too busy with Obamacare right now ... or pretty much any lame excuse. Or he could even ask Bibi as some kind of favor to give him an excuse from Israel. That's what friends do, right? 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Jingthing

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Push comes to shove, I don't think trump will really WANT to go through with the embassy move. But he will need some kind of face save to NOT do it. I think he could actually get away with too busy with Obamacare right now ... or pretty much any lame excuse. 

You seem to think that its all about Trump.

He will need to speak to Israeli PM to get his opinion, he will have to have feasibility studies, whether theres an adequate building in Jerusalem or whether a new Embassy building will have to be build, any planning permissions ,any security issues , costs and probably a whole host of other issues that need to be discussed before any agreements can be made and decisions taken .

   Trump will also have more other important issues to be dealing with at the moment .

     

[Jingthing]

Why this serious stuff --

 

Quote

 

Trump and Netanyahu Are Going To Get Jews Killed — Unless They Change Course

So I’ll say it bluntly now: Unless they change course, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are going to get Jews killed. I’m not saying that’s what they want. Of course not. And I’m not trying to detract from the primary moral responsibility of those Palestinians who detonate bombs or shoot guns or stab with knives. Palestinian terrorism is inexcusable. It always has been. It always will be.

 

http://forward.com/opinion/360966/trump-and-netanyahu-are-going-to-get-jews-killed-unless-they-change-course/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

 

I totally agree. I would like to see all the embassies to Israel in Jerusalem but I would like to see a lot of things that simply aren't worth the price!

 

[dexterm]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

As usual, overdoing it. Black might not be white, but that doesn't make white black.

 

Whatever the Palestinian agreed to was not "long ago", or at least not after decades of rejectionism. This can't be swept under the carpet and be ignored as a factor in their predicament. Whatever you imagine the Palestinian agreed to was not a final status actually a final status agreement, and they had their share of backing down, not fully living up to agreements and general intransigence. 

 

With regard to your standing talking point about Israel's borders - the usual reply: Israel got an agreed upon border with two of its neighbors (Egypt, Jordan), an almost agreed upon border with a third (Lebanon). So to say its borders were never defined is obviously wrong. The borders with Syria and the future state of Palestine are not agreed upon. Most of the world, and most agreements discussed refer to the 1967 lines as a baseline, with some alteration. There are also various versions as to how the border between Jordan and the future state of Palestine will be managed. Other than its unrecognized annexation of East Jerusalem, Israel did not, as far as the Palestinians go, officially expanded it's borders.

 

Under no agreement was Israel required to recognize a Palestinian State. That's another bogus talking point you raise from time to time. In fact, any possible peace agreement will not result in a Palestinian State which will have full powers and rights - that's not a question of right and wrong,  just how it is. Needless to say, the current Palestinian leaderships do not see eye to eye on these issues and that's another thing you try to gloss over.

 

We are in agreement with regard to your last two paragraphs. It is indeed a wrong move at the wrong time, but again - there are signs that this too may be put aside.

Parts of your posts do make me smile at times, with a mixture of whitewash, graywash and hot air.

 

>>Whatever the Palestinian agreed to was not "long ago"
...depends whether you regard Palestinians recognizing Israel's right to exist in 1988 verbally, and 1993 in writing as long ago. I do, and I expect others would regard some 25 years ago as a long time. And I never said it was final status agreement. Still, it would be helpful if Israel officially (even though not obliged to in a formal agreement...PLO slipped up there relying on goodwill rather than getting it in writing) said something similar about Palestinians' right to exist in their own state.

 

Instead we have every single one of Netanyahu's ministers, including Bibi himself, saying there will never be a Palestinian state.

 

The two-state solution is dead
Just ask Israel's own ministers.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/05/state-palestine-israel-zionist-150527070943455.html

 

Well worth reading. I can only quote 3 of them (forum rules) but they are all there.

 

Naftali Bennett, education minister (Jewish Home)
"I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state."

Ayelet Shaked, justice minister (Jewish Home) who once called Palestinian children "little snakes"
"We should manage the conflict and not give up on any centimetre of land."

Uri Ariel, agriculture and rural development minister (Jewish Home)
"We need to state clearly that there won't be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River."

 

And in your 3rd paragraph you take 8 lines to say Israel has defined borders...err.. but only with 2 out of its 5 neighbors. Like saying a girl is half pregnant. Show me a map of Israel with all its borders clearly defined.

Edited January 25, 2017 by dexterm

[Srikcir]

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The two-state solution is dead

Ultimately that will be for the UN Security Council to decide and not for Israel to decide.

While Trump has shown feigned support for a de facto one-state solution promoted by Bibi, if Trump has staked his reputation of visibly supporting a two-state solution (ie., as the Great Negotiator) he will reverse his loyalty to Bibi. And maybe for a Trump Tower franchise in China and Russia as a bonus?

[Morch]

10 hours ago, dexterm said:

Parts of your posts do make me smile at times, with a mixture of whitewash, graywash and hot air.

 

>>Whatever the Palestinian agreed to was not "long ago"
...depends whether you regard Palestinians recognizing Israel's right to exist in 1988 verbally, and 1993 in writing as long ago. I do, and I expect others would regard some 25 years ago as a long time. And I never said it was final status agreement. Still, it would be helpful if Israel officially (even though not obliged to in a formal agreement...PLO slipped up there relying on goodwill rather than getting it in writing) said something similar about Palestinians' right to exist in their own state.

 

Instead we have every single one of Netanyahu's ministers, including Bibi himself, saying there will never be a Palestinian state.

 

The two-state solution is dead
Just ask Israel's own ministers.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/05/state-palestine-israel-zionist-150527070943455.html

 

Well worth reading. I can only quote 3 of them (forum rules) but they are all there.

 

Naftali Bennett, education minister (Jewish Home)
"I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state."

Ayelet Shaked, justice minister (Jewish Home) who once called Palestinian children "little snakes"
"We should manage the conflict and not give up on any centimetre of land."

Uri Ariel, agriculture and rural development minister (Jewish Home)
"We need to state clearly that there won't be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River."

 

And in your 3rd paragraph you take 8 lines to say Israel has defined borders...err.. but only with 2 out of its 5 neighbors. Like saying a girl is half pregnant. Show me a map of Israel with all its borders clearly defined.

 

Take a look at your previous post. The one riling about calling black white, then applying a mirror image of the same. That about covers the range of your perception when it comes to these topics. Black and white. Rather funny coming from someone seeing Trump as a negative influence, while embracing his "alternate facts" style. As for whining about "whitewash", "greywash" and "hot air" - this would be slightly more credible had you not chosen to repeatedly flat out ignore anything related to the Palestinian side's part in the conflict.

 

Figures you'd take the "long ago" bit out of context, considering your blind spot when it comes to anything hinting at Palestinian accountability. The conflict did not begin in 1988, nor in 1993. The Palestinian stance was one of rejectionism, since 1947 (if not earlier). That's "long ago", when compared to the 1988 or 1993.

 

Trying the same old chestnuts will not make then any more correct. We've been through the issue of the supposed Palestinian recognition of Israel on previous topics. Suffice to say, that as usual you provide a very partial account which fits the agenda and narrative pushed. The actual status of the supposed recognition is rather murky - and was always thus. Arafat, Abbas and other PLO leaders did their best to dodge this, and gave conflicting statements at different times. The status of the actual amendments which were agreed upon is questionable. The PLO did not slip up on the issue of an Israeli recognition, certainly nothing to do with relying on you made up "goodwill". Arafat was not the naive and trusting figure you try to portray him as.

 

It is hardly news that Israel's right wing is not in favor of Palestinian state. The article you linked, by the way, does not include all the ministers in the current Israeli government, and three of those quoted are not currently members. The sort of facts you'd probably call "pedantry" as they interfere with your broad brush strokes.

 

My comment on borders is actually not that complicated - it simply comes to counter your aforementioned black and white view. It demonstrates that the situation is complex rather than complying with your simplistic "analysis". As you claim to be familiar with the ME, you'll probably note that many of the countries in the region got border disputes with neighbors. I do not need to show you a map such as you haughtily demand - never claimed there was one.

[Jingthing]

11 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Ultimately that will be for the UN Security Council to decide and not for Israel to decide.

While Trump has shown feigned support for a de facto one-state solution promoted by Bibi, if Trump has staked his reputation of visibly supporting a two-state solution (ie., as the Great Negotiator) he will reverse his loyalty to Bibi. And maybe for a Trump Tower franchise in China and Russia as a bonus?

trump is not invested at all in promising a two state solution.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Jingthing

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Ultimately that will be for the UN Security Council to decide and not for Israel to decide.

While Trump has shown feigned support for a de facto one-state solution promoted by Bibi, if Trump has staked his reputation of visibly supporting a two-state solution (ie., as the Great Negotiator) he will reverse his loyalty to Bibi. And maybe for a Trump Tower franchise in China and Russia as a bonus?

 

Netanyahu is not promoting anything. Like many on Israel's right wing, there seems to be a chasm between their wishes regarding the West Bank and coming up with a coherent answer as to the status of the Palestinians. If it sounds ridiculous, well yeah - that's pretty much what Netanyahu's opposition in Israel and many of his critics abroad say. Easier to accept when it comes from religious zealots on Israel's right wing, as one expects that from such.

 

I have no doubt that if the US embassy will indeed move to Jerusalem, it will cause further tensions between the sides and between the US and its other ME allies. Objectively, though, it would carry different meanings depending on the location within the city, and whether the existing US consulate (which actually serves as a de-facto embassy to the Palestinian Authority) will be kept or its status upgraded.

 

Right now, seems that the Trump administration is being cautious compared to previous statements. This may have to do with input received from Trump's cabinet choices, or other US agencies. Perhaps messages from other countries in the region.