Trump said he was working "very, very hard on trying to finally create peace between Palestinians and Israel and I think we will be successful, I hope to be successful".

He also said the Jordanian leader -  "a tireless advocate for a solution" - would help him with his mission.

"Working together, the United States and Jordan can help bring peace and stability to the Middle East and in fact to the entire world. And we will do that," said Trump.

A two-state solution - the idea of Israel and Palestine living side-by-side and at peace - has been the bedrock of US diplomacy for the past two decades.

The Palestinians want an independent state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the capital in East Jerusalem, which Israel occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.

Trump sparked international criticism in February when he suggested, in a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that he would no longer insist on the creation of an independent Palestinian state as part of any future peace accord. 

In an interview several weeks later, he clarified that he would be "satisfied with whatever [solution] makes both parties happy".

read more:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/jordan-praises-trump-israel-palest...

 

It's not my usual rant to agree with the rubbish Breitbart media --from which Steve Bannon stems from -- but on some issues, one can only wonder what's what. The difference between publishing fake news and ignoring some facts is very thin, including at the major media organisation such as the New York Times.

 

I must say here that as I tried to explain to serious journalists that the Trump missiles on Syria was an act of war and also mention that the "little babies" might have been gassed by the locals and not by the Syrian government -- with some facts and very valid opinions in hand, the reaction of these senior journalists has been more than baffling, if not hysterical. Yes, hysterical and aggressively mad has been the stunning attitude as if I was the devil, a really bad egg supporting the axis of evil. These journalists simply didn't want to know about the possibility that Assad might not have "gassed his people".

 

I personally don't know, but so far my research has shown the opposite. For example Assad officially gave up all his chemical weapons to be destroyed by 2013, but in territories where the rebels are, the said chemicals still exist. Add two and two and you could discover what I mean. No-one has demanded for these chemicals to be handed over.

Thus I have been wondering about the hysterical journalists who don't even want to engage an inch on this issue, until I realised that most journalists are in very precarious position in the Western world. No pressure but if they don't tow the official line, they can be sacked rather quickly or be moved to the gardening section which will be canned the week after next because of cost saving measures. So the official line is that Assad is a mad person who "gasses his people" and has to go. No deviation from this inference in ALL the major Western media, from Der Speigel to The Washington Post. The media is in this amazing state of hysteria: Assad BAD. Putin BAD. Trump? GETTING better, because he is on the war path and he has rescinded his capital sin of wanting to make friend with Russia, or at least not be a nasty dork towards it.

 

So the media gets rewarded for being stupid:

 

The New York Times has won the Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting for their Russia scaremongering in 2016. This leads to one question — are the Pulitzers anything more than a booby prize for the opposition party election losers?

According to the Pulitzer website, the New York Times won “for agenda-setting reporting on Vladimir Putin’s efforts to project Russia’s power abroad, revealing techniques that included assassination, online harassment and the planting of incriminating evidence on opponents.” In two short years we’ve gone from feminists testifying to the United Nations about online harassment to a Pulitzer awarded for coverage of online harassment. What a world we live in! This isn’t an isolated case either — David Fahrenthold won the Pulitzer in National Reporting for trolling Trump over charitable contributions. Fahrenthold also helped break the “pussygate” story, which only the Pulitzer committee actually remembers.

The committee that selected the New York Times is filled with professors and media honchos. I think it’s safe to assume they collectively own very few MAGA hats, so trying to soothe the wounds of the most mainstream of mainstream media newspapers seems reasonable. It does call the award’s credibility into question, however, especially when you consider what the Pulitzer medal has printed on it: “for disinterested and meritorious public service rendered by an American newspaper during the year 2016.” Does that describe the New York Times by any stretch of the imagination? As I’ve written previously, the Times and their cohorts continue to chase the Russia story in vain while ignoring the surveillance of Trump during the election.

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/04/12/madine-have-the-pulit...