Datasets:
PaulPauls
/
openwebtext-sentences

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
2
text
stringlengths
1
100k
The draft resolution, circulated by Egypt on Wednesday night and originally slated for a vote Thursday, demands that Israel cease all settlement building in the West Bank, and it declares that existing settlements have "no legal validity."
But the vote, originally scheduled for 3pm ET today, has been delayed under intense pressure from Israel.
In a statement on Twitter and Facebook early Thursday, Trump called on Obama to veto the measure, saying the resolution "puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis."
"As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations," he said.
Trump's statement comes hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also urged the U.S. to veto the resolution, calling it "anti-Israel."
The resolution would need nine affirmative votes and no vetoes by the United States or any of the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in order to be adopted.
But several diplomatic sources tell NBC NEWS that the outgoing Obama administration was planning to abstain - going against both Netanyahu and Trump.
The White House has been trying to lay down markers against Trump on the Middle East - especially since the president-elect nominated hardliner and pro-settlement advocate David Friedman to be his Ambassador to Israel.
Friedman and Ivanka Trump's father in law - Charles Kushner - co-founded the Bet El foundation, which supports the most radical of the settlers.
At a DC conference two weeks ago, Friedman compared members of "J Street," prominent American Jewish leaders who support a two-state solution, to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis in concentration camps.
Friedman's nomination requires confirmation by the Senate.
New York Red Bulls Homegrown midfielder Tyler Adams earned a start for the United States Under-18 National Team yesterday in a 4-0 win over a youth side from Chivas Guadalajara.
Adams joined the U.S. U-18s over the weekend for camp in Guadalajara, Mexico.
The U.S. U-18s will face two other club sides based in Guadalajara, Club Universidad and Atlas Futbol Club, over the next week.
Adams, a native of Wappinger’s Falls, N.Y., joined the Red Bulls youth system through the Regional Development School program, and then advanced through the academy system before signing his first professional contract with New York Red Bulls II in 2015.
Adams joined the New York Red Bulls first team on an MLS Homegrown contract prior to the 2016 season.
The midfielder made his MLS debut in April against San Jose.
Adams has represented the United States at a number of youth international levels, including time with the U.S. U-17 residency program, and as part of the 2015 FIFA Under-17 World Cup roster.
​ SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW YORK RED BULLS EMAIL NEWSLETTER
The eight World Cup second round matches are spread over the course of four days.
Here’s previews for the first half… Uruguay v South Korea Uruguay have been one of the most impressive teams so far – playing for and achieving a draw against France, destroying South Africa and recording a solid 1-0 victory over Mexico.
They started the competition with a 3-5-2 shape, which became more like a 5-3-2 when the wing-backs had to contain France’s wingers.
They’ve since switched to a 4-3-1-2 with Diego Forlan playing behind the main two forwards, and they’ll surely play the same formation after their two wins.
South Korea’s first XI is fairly predictable.
The only changes they’ve made so far have been at right-back, bringing in Oh Bum-Suk against Argentina – but he was the worst player on the pitch, so Cha Du-Ri has regained his place.
The formation will probably be 4-2-3-1.
Playing Park Ji-Sung on the left-hand side might be useful to track the forward runs of Maxi Pereira, although he was fielded in the centre of the three against Argentina.
Picking up Forlan is the obvious task – with two holding midfielders, Korea will have a man tracking him, but must worry this will concede the midfield ground to Uruguay.
Korea should look to play down their left-hand-side, because Uruguay’s shape tends to be slightly lopsided.
Alvaro Pereira, generally a left wing-back, is playing a more central role but tends to drift back out wide, sometimes meaning Uruguay look like two banks of four minus a right-sided midfielder.
USA v Ghana The US start as favourites, but this one might suit Ghana tactically; they will be content to sit back and soak up pressure, before hitting the US on the counter-attack.
The American full-backs have appeared a little slow in recovering their position after forays forward so far in the tournament, which will be perfect for the pacey Ghana wingers.
The best course of action for the US is to put the Ghana centre-backs under as much pressure as possible early on.
Ghana will probably have a 3 v 2 advantage in the centre of midfield, so more direct balls towards the strikers (with Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan supporting very close by, something they did particularly well against England) might be a better approach than playing through midfield.
In particular, 20-year-old Jonathan Mensah has looked slightly nervy so far, and Jozy Altidore should be able to get at him.
The midfield battle will probably be quite reserved.
Both central midfields generally sit deep rather than look to make penetrative runs, so they may play in front of each other, and create a slightly static contest.
The US will dominate possession and territory – but finding a way past Ghana’s good defence won’t be easy.
This one calls for all of Bob Bradley’s tactical ability – so far he’s generally got his team playing better after half-time, but below-par first halves won’t be acceptable in the knockout stages.
Germany v England If the two sides perform to the standard as they have so far in the competition, then England are in for a thrashing.
First and foremost, their ball retention must be far better.
As with all 4-2-3-1 v 4-4-2 battles, the main task for Fabio Capello is to work out how to deal with Mesut Ozil – the match-winner for Germany against Australia and Ghana.
Those two teams both allowed him far too much space between the lines, and it’s likely that Gareth Barry will have the task of tracking him, something he did well against Algeria.
This would mean a numerical disadvantage further forward in midfield, where Frank Lampard would be forced to pick up the runs of both Sami Khedira and Bastian Schweinsteiger, so it’s likely one of England’s two strikers will be given more defensive responsibility when out of possession.
The natural man to do this is Wayne Rooney, who has consistently shown his defensive awareness throughout his career, particularly when playing on the wing for Manchester United.
However, Jermain Defoe has done well in recent months in this respect.
Capello won’t want Rooney to become overburdened defensively, nor will he want Defoe playing a permanently withdrawn role and negating the threat of his pace in behind the German defence – so it’s likely they’ll take it in turns to pick up the Germans’ deepest holding midfielder – most likely Schweinsteiger, if fit.
Germany’s most important player in a defensive sense could be Thomas Muller, on the right-hand side.
He’s impressed at Bayern Munich for his discipline, and he’ll be up against Ashley Cole, possibly England’s best performer so far.
With Steven Gerrard always likely to drift in from the left, stopping Cole is vital because it gives England no natural left-sided option, and with them struggling to keep the ball in the centre of the pitch, makes their attacking threat rather basic.
German pressing will also be key – the distribution from England’s centre-backs so far has been appalling, and putting them under pressure early on will expose this even further.
This all assumes that Fabio Capello will stick with 4-4-2 – but he shows no sign of ditching the system.
Argentina v Mexico A fascinating contest, that Mexico might be reasonably well set up for with their fluid defensive system.
2 v 1 at the back against Gonzalo Higuain, Rafael Marquez marking Lionel Messi, the two Mexican full-backs picking up the Argentina wingers – Mexico might be able to blunt Argentina’s attack.
That’s easier said than done, of course, and the all-Barcelona Marquez v Messi contest might decide things.
Pace is the key in getting past the Argentina defence, who have maintained a surprisingly high line so far.
Getting the ball towards Giovani dos Santos as early as possible will surely be Mexico’s main route of attack.
The probable return of Efrain Juarez (after suspension) in the centre of midfield will offer the other driving threat from midfield, and he could get the better of Javier Mascherano, who often becomes isolated in front of his defence.
In the one game Mexico have won so far, their biggest outlet has been Carlos Salcido, in the left wing-back position.
Against France he constantly stormed forward, stretched the play and swung crosses in – but against Uruguay, he was muted because of the presence of either Edinson Cavani or Luis Suarez.
Diego Maradona and Carlos Bilardo will look to occupy him, which means Carlos Tevez could revert to the right-sided role he played against Nigeria, rather than the left-sided one he played against South Korea.
Related articles on Zonal Marking:
One family says the ratings-grabbing reality show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" turned their personal tragedy into a practical nightmare, leaving them with virtually nothing but a lawsuit.
The Higgins family, five kids between the ages of 14 to 21-years-old, lived in a two-bedroom apartment in California, orphaned by the deaths of their parents.
Their story grabbed headlines.
Producers at the reality show took notice.
The family's church first raised money to help them out.
Then, “Extreme Makeover" contacted the church to arrange an interview with the young adults.
Maybe they could be the next “deserving family.” Fellow church members, the Leomiti family, offered to take the Higgins family into their home.
The lawsuit claims the family's motivation wasn't to save the kids from a life of despair.
It was to get a newly built nine-bedroom house, mortgage paid, a weeklong vacation and other gifts like computers, stereos and cars.
According to the suit against the Leomitis, ABC and the producers of “Extreme Makeover,” around the time the episode aired, the Higgins' moved out one-by-one as a result of a “orchestrated campaign” by the Leomiti family to get rid of them.
Mrs. Leomiti called the lawsuit “bogus” in an interview with the Abrams Report over the phone.
Charles Higgins, the oldest of the five Higgins children, and the Higgins' family attorney, Patrick Mesisca, explain their case to "The Abrams Report" DAN ABRAMS, 'ABRAMS REPORT’ HOST: Charles, first let me start with you.
Tell me first of all what happened here.
CHARLES HIGGINS, SUING 'EXTREME MAKEOVER': What happened was we were supposed to be promised a house that was to be built for everybody.
My brothers and sisters were supposed to have a place to stay and now we‘re practically homeless.
We‘re not together —we‘re not living together in one home.
We‘re living in separate homes with each of our friends and it really hurts because I‘m 22.
I‘m trying to pull an extra load.
I‘ve got a lot on my shoulders here.
I‘m trying to be a good role model but it's hard when you don't really have a place to stay or a place for your younger brothers and siblings to call home, so they can wake up in the morning and they don‘t have to worry about where they are going to live or what they're going to do.
It really hurts, it hurts me to see the look on their face every day because I know they worry.
ABRAMS: Patrick, were you literally thrown out of the house or is it basically that you felt that you weren‘t wanted there anymore?
HIGGINS: I'm not really going to comment on that right now because all of that is in the lawsuit.
But practically what I‘m going to say is my brothers were done wrong by the show, by ABC.
ABC promised that we were going to have a home and that we were going to be together.
And basically what happened was, we're not in a home.
The thing is they keep airing our show almost like every other weekend and so that show, every time it gets aired, it makes money.
They‘re practically making money off of us, and it's telling a story that's not really true.
It's telling a story that we‘re all in a house together, we‘re happy, we're a loving family, we’re happier than we ever could be in our lives, but it's really not true.
ABRAMS: Mr. Higgins look, I'm sorry.
Charles' family‘' story is obviously a heartbreaking one.
It's one the led them, ABC, to act and to try and build this home to accommodate them.
But I don‘t get how the program is responsible for what sounds like a family versus family squabble.
PATRICK MESISCA, HIGGINS‘ FAMILY ATTORNEY: The program, or, if you will, corporate entities that make up the program made a promise to the Higgins' family and told them that they were going to provide a home for them.
The only home that was provided was an expansion of the residence in which the Leomitis live, and when all was said and done and the broadcast aired, the only benefit that the Higgins‘ children received was the right to be visitors in that home.
ABRAMS: But everyone knew that.
I mean that clearly happened.
By the end of the show, there was this big house built and they were all in the house.