Britain could almost double the number of plastic bottles that are recycled by adding a small deposit charge to every sale, according to new evidence.
The latest figures available from Norway, which has the world's most effective Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) on plastic drinks bottles, show 96% are returned by consumers for recycling.
There, a standard 500ml drinks bottle has a deposit of 1 Norwegian Kroner (about 10p), with larger bottles carrying a 2.5 Kroner (25p) deposit.
Consumers have the deposit refunded when they return their empties.
Unclaimed deposits on the bottles that aren't returned help fund the system, with the balance made up by drinks manufacturers.
In the UK fewer than half of bottles are effectively recycled.
As part of Sky Ocean Rescue, Sky News is launching a new campaign to introduce a DRS in the UK.
:: Sky Ocean Rescue: How can we solve the problem?
:: Sky Views: Why we're launching Sky Ocean Rescue
PET, the form of plastic used in water and soft-drinks bottles, has a relatively high value.
By keeping the empties separate from other kerbside recycling the plastic remains uncontaminated and attracts a premium price from companies making new bottles.
Kjell Olav Maldum, who runs the Norway's bottle recycling scheme Infinitum, said 8% of annual oil production is used to make plastic and the material should be seen as a valuable resource.
"Plastic, when you make it from oil, uses a lot of energy," he said.
"If you collect it from recycled material through a deposit system you take care of the material.
"You keep it clean and you can use it again and again."
Norway, like the UK, had a deposit on glass bottles for several decades.
But while deposits disappeared in the UK when plastic replaced glass, in Norway they continued.
There, any shop selling bottles is obliged to collect empties, with owners given a small handling fee.
Larger stores and supermarkets often install "reverse vending machines" that scan barcodes and give consumers vouchers against their shopping or make a donation to charity in return for bottles.
Anne-Marit Lunestad, a teacher, said even a small deposit adds up to a significant sum over time.
She said: "It can be a lot - thousands of kroner every year if you have a family.
"It's the best thing to do anywhere in world. Get rid of the plastic. Look around - we don't get plastic (litter) any more."
In the UK 16 million of the 35.8 million plastic bottles consumed every day evade recycling schemes, according to Recycling Now.
Zero Waste Scotland, which is campaigning for a DRS, predicts it would boost recycling rates to more than 85%, saving local authorities £13m a year on kerbside collections.
It also values the social satisfaction from reduced litter at £205m a year.
Members of the Scottish Parliament have travelled to Norway to study how the DRS scheme works.
It has been so effective that most of the plastic now washing up on Norway's coast comes from abroad.
Simen Knudsen of Nordic Ocean Watch told Sky News that there are now six foreign bottles for every one Norwegian bottle, with many coming from the UK.
He said: "People (in Norway) understand they are borrowing the bottle but buying the contents.
"Get your own version of the deposit scheme in the UK. Then we can send you back the bottles and make some money out of it!"
But Petter Nome, chief executive of Norway Beer and Soft Drinks Producers, says the scheme works in the country because deposits "are in our genes".
"It has been built up gradually in this country," he said.
"If it's done overnight in Scotland it will be very expensive.
"You don't have the infrastructure. You have code (the reverse vending) machines to take tens of thousands of different cans and bottles.
"Someone has to do that work and someone has to pay for it."
:: You can find out more about Sky Ocean Rescue and get involved by visiting the campaign's website.
To discover the scale of the damage caused by plastic disposed in oceans, watch A Plastic Tide on Sky News at 8pm tonight.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Trump's immigration crackdown to start with Mexican wall order
Donald Trump is set to launch his immigration crackdown with an order enabling construction of his Mexican border wall.
Today the President is expected to sign several executive orders addressing one of his central campaign messages - that illegal immigration to the US is out of control and threatening the country's security.
As well as taking the first steps towards building what may eventually be a 2,000-mile barrier stretching across the southern US, Mr Trump is also expected to target so-called "sanctuary cities," where local officials refuse to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.
He is expected to sign the orders after speaking to workers at the Department of Homeland Security's Washington headquarters.
He tweeted overnight: "Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"
:: Trump revives controversial pipelines
:: Trump's fossil fuel victims: 'You can't drink oil'
Mr Trump would need to get approval from Congress for any new funding for the wall - with costs estimated at £5.2m ($6.5m) per mile for a single-layer fence by the Government Accountability Office.
The billionaire property tycoon said during his campaign and subsequently that Mexico would pay for the wall - a suggestion the country's leaders have repeatedly rejected.
The timetable for the various measures on immigration is reportedly still being finalised, but later this week the President is expected to move on to restricting access to the United States for refugees and some visa holders from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
The limits on refugees could include a ban lasting months on admissions from all countries until the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security can increase the intensity of the vetting process.
On the campaign trail, Mr Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States to protect Americans from terrorist attacks - but the headline promise subsequently disappeared from his website.
Both he and his nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, have shifted their focus to those individuals who could pose a danger, rather than any specific ban on people of a certain faith.
It is understood Mr Trump will have to instruct the State Department to stop issuing visas to people from those nations.
Another option at his disposal is instructing US Customs and Border Protection to stop any current visa holders from those countries from coming into the United States.
Immigration hardliners had been growing impatient, piling on the pressure as the new President quietly backed away from a pledge to end protections for nearly 750,000 immigrants brought to the US illegally as children.
These latest orders give the impression of Mr Trump following through on his big pledges - but they will prove hugely controversial, requiring a major shake-up of America's immigration system.
Today the President is expected to sign several executive orders addressing one of his central campaign messages - that illegal immigration to the US is out of control and threatening the country's security.
As well as taking the first steps towards building what may eventually be a 2,000-mile barrier stretching across the southern US, Mr Trump is also expected to target so-called "sanctuary cities," where local officials refuse to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.
He is expected to sign the orders after speaking to workers at the Department of Homeland Security's Washington headquarters.
He tweeted overnight: "Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"
:: Trump revives controversial pipelines
:: Trump's fossil fuel victims: 'You can't drink oil'
Mr Trump would need to get approval from Congress for any new funding for the wall - with costs estimated at £5.2m ($6.5m) per mile for a single-layer fence by the Government Accountability Office.
The billionaire property tycoon said during his campaign and subsequently that Mexico would pay for the wall - a suggestion the country's leaders have repeatedly rejected.
The timetable for the various measures on immigration is reportedly still being finalised, but later this week the President is expected to move on to restricting access to the United States for refugees and some visa holders from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
The limits on refugees could include a ban lasting months on admissions from all countries until the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security can increase the intensity of the vetting process.
On the campaign trail, Mr Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States to protect Americans from terrorist attacks - but the headline promise subsequently disappeared from his website.
Both he and his nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, have shifted their focus to those individuals who could pose a danger, rather than any specific ban on people of a certain faith.
It is understood Mr Trump will have to instruct the State Department to stop issuing visas to people from those nations.
Another option at his disposal is instructing US Customs and Border Protection to stop any current visa holders from those countries from coming into the United States.
Immigration hardliners had been growing impatient, piling on the pressure as the new President quietly backed away from a pledge to end protections for nearly 750,000 immigrants brought to the US illegally as children.
These latest orders give the impression of Mr Trump following through on his big pledges - but they will prove hugely controversial, requiring a major shake-up of America's immigration system.
US President Donald Trump invites Narendra Modi
US President Donald Trump has invited India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi to visit the United States after a phone call between the two leaders.
Washington said Mr Trump saw India as a "true friend and partner in addressing challenges around the world".
"The two discussed opportunities to strengthen the partnership between the US and India in broad areas such as the economy and defence," it said.
Mr Modi said he had "also invited President Trump to visit India".
The White House said it looked forward to welcoming Mr Modi later this year.
Trump's Hindu, Sikh and Muslim power brokers
What executive actions has Trump taken?
What Indians thought of Trump speaking Hindi
Eight ways Trump's presidency makes history
The US statement added that Mr Trump and Mr Modi resolved to "stand shoulder to shoulder in the global fight against terrorism".
Mr Modi had congratulated Trump after his election win in November, saying he appreciated his "friendship" with India.
During the US election campaign, Mr Trump wooed Indian-American voters and was largely positive about India.
He praised Mr Modi for championing bureaucratic reform and economic growth.
Washington said Mr Trump saw India as a "true friend and partner in addressing challenges around the world".
"The two discussed opportunities to strengthen the partnership between the US and India in broad areas such as the economy and defence," it said.
Mr Modi said he had "also invited President Trump to visit India".
The White House said it looked forward to welcoming Mr Modi later this year.
Trump's Hindu, Sikh and Muslim power brokers
What executive actions has Trump taken?
What Indians thought of Trump speaking Hindi
Eight ways Trump's presidency makes history
The US statement added that Mr Trump and Mr Modi resolved to "stand shoulder to shoulder in the global fight against terrorism".
Mr Modi had congratulated Trump after his election win in November, saying he appreciated his "friendship" with India.
During the US election campaign, Mr Trump wooed Indian-American voters and was largely positive about India.
He praised Mr Modi for championing bureaucratic reform and economic growth.
Trump to take executive action on border security -- including the wall
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump will begin rolling out executive actions on immigration Wednesday, beginning with steps to build his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to two administration officials. He's also expected to target so-called sanctuary cities and is reviewing proposals that would restrict the flow of refugees to the United States.
The president is expected to sign the first actions -- including the measure to jumpstart construction of the wall -- Wednesday during a trip to the Department of Homeland Security. Additional actions will be rolled out over the next few days, according to one official.
Trump is said to still be weighing the details of plans to restrict refugees coming to the U.S. The current proposal includes at least a four-month halt on all refugee admissions, as well as temporary ban on people coming from some Muslim majority countries, according to a representative of a public policy organization that monitors refugee issues. The person was briefed on the details of that proposed action by a government official and outlined the expected steps for The Associated Press.
May must get parliamentary approval to initiate Brexit
The British Supreme Court has ruled the government must seek parliamentary approval before formally initiating the process to leave the European Union.
Tuesday's decision, which affirms an earlier High Court ruling, is a setback for Prime Minister Theresa May, who intends to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the bloc by the end of March this year.
The UK's 11 most senior judges voted by eight to three to reject the government's appeal against the earlier ruling.
In his statement, the presiding judge, Lord David Neuberger, said the act of parliament establishing the referendum to leave the EU did not say what should happen as a result.
"Any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by an act of parliament," he said.
"To proceed otherwise will be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries."
The ruling means May must put forward legislation to initiate Brexit to MPs for approval, a vote she would almost certainly succeed in passing as the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is expected to order his MPs to vote in support of it.
Corbyn reacted to the decision on Monday, saying that his party "respects the result of the referendum and the will of the British people and will not frustrate the process for invoking Article 50".
He also urged the government Brexit plan to include accountability to parliament during exit negotiations as well as a vote on the final deal.
A spokesperson for the government said it would be setting out its next steps shortly but insisted there would be no changes to the current timetable for Brexit.
"The British people voted to leave the EU, and the government will deliver on their verdict; triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today’s ruling does nothing to change that," the spokesperson said.
The judgment will not give MPs an opportunity to stop Brexit from happening but will give them more influence on the negotiations, according the University of Surrey’s Simon Usherwood, a specialist on movements that oppose the EU.
"Losing in the Supreme Court isn't going to change the complexity, but it might change the outcome," he told Al Jazeera.
"Despite the broad support for EU membership among MPs, I don't think that will translate into any particular protection of single-market membership, since many MPs will fear that their constituents will see that as trying to get around the referendum result."
Kevin McGuire, associate editor of Daily Mirror, told Al Jazeera that the development was an "emberassment" for May rather than a setback.
"It is embarrasing when Theresa May wanted to act like a monarch and make the decision herself rather than let parliament be sovereign and make the decision," he said. "Brexit will still go ahead."
Tuesday's decision, which affirms an earlier High Court ruling, is a setback for Prime Minister Theresa May, who intends to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the bloc by the end of March this year.
The UK's 11 most senior judges voted by eight to three to reject the government's appeal against the earlier ruling.
In his statement, the presiding judge, Lord David Neuberger, said the act of parliament establishing the referendum to leave the EU did not say what should happen as a result.
"Any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by an act of parliament," he said.
"To proceed otherwise will be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries."
The ruling means May must put forward legislation to initiate Brexit to MPs for approval, a vote she would almost certainly succeed in passing as the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is expected to order his MPs to vote in support of it.
Corbyn reacted to the decision on Monday, saying that his party "respects the result of the referendum and the will of the British people and will not frustrate the process for invoking Article 50".
He also urged the government Brexit plan to include accountability to parliament during exit negotiations as well as a vote on the final deal.
A spokesperson for the government said it would be setting out its next steps shortly but insisted there would be no changes to the current timetable for Brexit.
"The British people voted to leave the EU, and the government will deliver on their verdict; triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today’s ruling does nothing to change that," the spokesperson said.
The judgment will not give MPs an opportunity to stop Brexit from happening but will give them more influence on the negotiations, according the University of Surrey’s Simon Usherwood, a specialist on movements that oppose the EU.
"Losing in the Supreme Court isn't going to change the complexity, but it might change the outcome," he told Al Jazeera.
"Despite the broad support for EU membership among MPs, I don't think that will translate into any particular protection of single-market membership, since many MPs will fear that their constituents will see that as trying to get around the referendum result."
Kevin McGuire, associate editor of Daily Mirror, told Al Jazeera that the development was an "emberassment" for May rather than a setback.
"It is embarrasing when Theresa May wanted to act like a monarch and make the decision herself rather than let parliament be sovereign and make the decision," he said. "Brexit will still go ahead."
Trump's embassy move to Jerusalem 'self-destructive'
Newly inaugurated US President Donald Trump is about to reverse an historical course that has been in the making for 100 years.
The inexperienced, demagogic politician hardly understands the danger that lies in his decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If he goes through with this, he is likely to unleash an episode of chaos in an already volatile region.
The move, which is now reportedly in the "beginning stages", is not a mere symbolic one, as some naively reported in Western mainstream media. True, American foreign policy has been centred mostly on military power, rarely historical fact.
But Trump, known for his thoughtlessness and impulsive nature, is threatening to eradicate even the little common sense that governed US foreign policy conduct in the Middle East.
If the new president moves forward with his plan, unsympathetic to Palestinian pleas and international warnings, he is likely to regret the unanticipated consequences of his action.
A century ago, British forces under the command of General Sir Edmund Allenby occupied the Palestinian Arab city of Jerusalem. That ominous event in December 1917 disturbed the cultural and political equilibrium that existed in Palestine for nearly a millennium.
Throughout his campaign for the White House, Trump made numerous, wholesale, often contradictory promises. While initially he pledged to keep a similar distance between Palestinians and Israel, he later reversed his position, adopting that of Israel's right-wing government.
It also initiated a war that has proved the longest and one of the most bloody and destabilising in modern human history. Although Palestine was wrestled from the hand of its governing bodies operating under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire, its new British rulers understood the unequalled importance of Jerusalem to its people.
That understanding was always present, even when France and Britain signed the Sykes-Picot agreement in May 1916, dividing Ottoman territories among themselves, Jerusalem's status was designated as an international area owing to its shared religious significance.
The same emphasis regarding the neutrality of Jerusalem was made time and again, including in the League of Nations' decision in 1922 to give Britain a political mandate over Palestine, and the United Nations resolution to divide Palestine into two countries, one Arab and one Jewish, in November 1947.
While that envisaged Palestinian state never actualised (thanks to numerous obstacles placed by the US and Israel), Israel became a reality in May 1948. Mere months after an armistice agreement was reached, Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital in December 1949.
It was then that biblical mythology was remoulded to fit political exigencies.
Israel's first Parliament (Knesset) declared in January 1950 that "Jerusalem was, and had always been the capital of Israel". The "was" and "always been" are references to a twisted interpretation of history that has no place in modern international law, of which Israel is never a follower to begin with.
After 1,500 years of Canaanite rule over Palestine, the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea fell under the rule of numerous invaders, including the Philistines, the Israelites, the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Crusaders, and then it was ruled by various Islamic Caliphates from 1291 until the British mandate in 1922.
The Israelites' control barely lasted for 77 years and it is largely contested that Israeli Jews of today are even blood relatives of the groups that inhabited Palestine 2,000 years ago.
Yet, that was enough for the modern Israeli national myth, which is now championed by the most right-wing, religious extremists in both the United States and Israel.
In 1967, Israel occupied the rest of historic Palestine, including Palestinian East Jerusalem, annexing the city in 1980. The international community has continually rejected and condemned the Israeli occupation, with repeated emphasis on Jerusalem.
Countries around the world, even those that are considered allies of Israel, including the United States, reject Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, and refuse Israeli invitations to relocate their embassies from Tel Aviv to the illegally occupied city.
The United States' attitude towards Jerusalem, however, has been marred with contradictions. Since 1995, the US position has been divided between the historically pro-Israel US Congress and the equally pro-Israel but slightly more pragmatic White House.
In October 1995, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The act was passed by an overwhelming majority in both House and Senate. It called Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel and urged the State Department to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The US administration at the time protested against the violation of protocol as such a decision is the responsibility of the executive branch, not politicians beholden to Israel's influential lobby in Washington.
The other dilemma is that if the US walks away from international consensus on the matter, it both loses the little credibility it had as a "peace broker" and would be left to contend with the terrible consequences that are likely, including political instability and violence.
It is true that Jerusalem has tremendous spiritual significance for Muslims, Christians and Jews, but the uninterrupted cultural and religious significance it had for Palestinian Christians and Muslims alike makes it unpatrolled as an economic, political and cultural hub as well.
For many years, US administrations under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama have signed a presidential waiver that deferred the Congressional bill six months at a time.
The last time the waiver was signed by former President Obama was on December 1, 2016.
Throughout his campaign for the White House, Trump made numerous, wholesale, often contradictory promises. While he initially pledged to keep a similar distance between Palestinians and Israel, he later reversed his position, adopting that of Israel's right-wing government.
Now the opportunistic real-estate mogul enters the White House with an eerie agenda that looks identical to that of the current Israeli government of right-wingers and ultra-nationalists.
"We have now reached the point where envoys from one country to the other could almost switch places," wrote Palestinian Professor, Rashid Khalidi, in the New Yorker.
He wrote, "The Israeli Ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, who grew up in Florida, could just as easily be the US Ambassador to Israel, while Donald Trump's Ambassador-designate to Israel, David Friedman, who has intimate ties to the Israeli settler movement, would make a fine Ambassador in Washington for the pro-settler government of Benjamin Netanyahu."
The Israeli right is almost in a state of political euphoria. Not only are the superfluous references to a "peace process" and a Palestinian state over, but they also now have a free hand to build illegal Jewish settlements (colonies) in occupied Jerusalem unhindered.
New bills are springing in the Israeli Knesset to annex even the Jewish settlements rendered illegal by Israel’s own definitions, and to remove any restriction on new settlement construction and expansion.
The Trump administration has no qualms with that; to the contrary, this falls squarely in the agenda of the new rulers of the United States who now control the legislative and executive branches.
The inexperienced, demagogic politician hardly understands the danger that lies in his decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If he goes through with this, he is likely to unleash an episode of chaos in an already volatile region.
The move, which is now reportedly in the "beginning stages", is not a mere symbolic one, as some naively reported in Western mainstream media. True, American foreign policy has been centred mostly on military power, rarely historical fact.
But Trump, known for his thoughtlessness and impulsive nature, is threatening to eradicate even the little common sense that governed US foreign policy conduct in the Middle East.
If the new president moves forward with his plan, unsympathetic to Palestinian pleas and international warnings, he is likely to regret the unanticipated consequences of his action.
A century ago, British forces under the command of General Sir Edmund Allenby occupied the Palestinian Arab city of Jerusalem. That ominous event in December 1917 disturbed the cultural and political equilibrium that existed in Palestine for nearly a millennium.
Throughout his campaign for the White House, Trump made numerous, wholesale, often contradictory promises. While initially he pledged to keep a similar distance between Palestinians and Israel, he later reversed his position, adopting that of Israel's right-wing government.
It also initiated a war that has proved the longest and one of the most bloody and destabilising in modern human history. Although Palestine was wrestled from the hand of its governing bodies operating under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire, its new British rulers understood the unequalled importance of Jerusalem to its people.
That understanding was always present, even when France and Britain signed the Sykes-Picot agreement in May 1916, dividing Ottoman territories among themselves, Jerusalem's status was designated as an international area owing to its shared religious significance.
The same emphasis regarding the neutrality of Jerusalem was made time and again, including in the League of Nations' decision in 1922 to give Britain a political mandate over Palestine, and the United Nations resolution to divide Palestine into two countries, one Arab and one Jewish, in November 1947.
While that envisaged Palestinian state never actualised (thanks to numerous obstacles placed by the US and Israel), Israel became a reality in May 1948. Mere months after an armistice agreement was reached, Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital in December 1949.
It was then that biblical mythology was remoulded to fit political exigencies.
Israel's first Parliament (Knesset) declared in January 1950 that "Jerusalem was, and had always been the capital of Israel". The "was" and "always been" are references to a twisted interpretation of history that has no place in modern international law, of which Israel is never a follower to begin with.
After 1,500 years of Canaanite rule over Palestine, the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea fell under the rule of numerous invaders, including the Philistines, the Israelites, the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Crusaders, and then it was ruled by various Islamic Caliphates from 1291 until the British mandate in 1922.
The Israelites' control barely lasted for 77 years and it is largely contested that Israeli Jews of today are even blood relatives of the groups that inhabited Palestine 2,000 years ago.
Yet, that was enough for the modern Israeli national myth, which is now championed by the most right-wing, religious extremists in both the United States and Israel.
In 1967, Israel occupied the rest of historic Palestine, including Palestinian East Jerusalem, annexing the city in 1980. The international community has continually rejected and condemned the Israeli occupation, with repeated emphasis on Jerusalem.
Countries around the world, even those that are considered allies of Israel, including the United States, reject Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, and refuse Israeli invitations to relocate their embassies from Tel Aviv to the illegally occupied city.
The United States' attitude towards Jerusalem, however, has been marred with contradictions. Since 1995, the US position has been divided between the historically pro-Israel US Congress and the equally pro-Israel but slightly more pragmatic White House.
In October 1995, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The act was passed by an overwhelming majority in both House and Senate. It called Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel and urged the State Department to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The US administration at the time protested against the violation of protocol as such a decision is the responsibility of the executive branch, not politicians beholden to Israel's influential lobby in Washington.
The other dilemma is that if the US walks away from international consensus on the matter, it both loses the little credibility it had as a "peace broker" and would be left to contend with the terrible consequences that are likely, including political instability and violence.
It is true that Jerusalem has tremendous spiritual significance for Muslims, Christians and Jews, but the uninterrupted cultural and religious significance it had for Palestinian Christians and Muslims alike makes it unpatrolled as an economic, political and cultural hub as well.
For many years, US administrations under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama have signed a presidential waiver that deferred the Congressional bill six months at a time.
The last time the waiver was signed by former President Obama was on December 1, 2016.
Throughout his campaign for the White House, Trump made numerous, wholesale, often contradictory promises. While he initially pledged to keep a similar distance between Palestinians and Israel, he later reversed his position, adopting that of Israel's right-wing government.
Now the opportunistic real-estate mogul enters the White House with an eerie agenda that looks identical to that of the current Israeli government of right-wingers and ultra-nationalists.
"We have now reached the point where envoys from one country to the other could almost switch places," wrote Palestinian Professor, Rashid Khalidi, in the New Yorker.
He wrote, "The Israeli Ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, who grew up in Florida, could just as easily be the US Ambassador to Israel, while Donald Trump's Ambassador-designate to Israel, David Friedman, who has intimate ties to the Israeli settler movement, would make a fine Ambassador in Washington for the pro-settler government of Benjamin Netanyahu."
The Israeli right is almost in a state of political euphoria. Not only are the superfluous references to a "peace process" and a Palestinian state over, but they also now have a free hand to build illegal Jewish settlements (colonies) in occupied Jerusalem unhindered.
New bills are springing in the Israeli Knesset to annex even the Jewish settlements rendered illegal by Israel’s own definitions, and to remove any restriction on new settlement construction and expansion.
The Trump administration has no qualms with that; to the contrary, this falls squarely in the agenda of the new rulers of the United States who now control the legislative and executive branches.
Oscars 2017: Full list of nominations
This year's Oscar nominations are out and Hollywood musical La La Land leads the way with a record-equalling 14. Here are the nominees in all categories:
BEST PICTURE
Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester by the Sea
Moonlight
:: La La Land leads diverse Oscar nominations
BEST DIRECTOR
Damien Chazelle - La La Land
Barry Jenkins - Moonlight
Kenneth Lonergan - Manchester by the Sea
Denis Villeneuve - Arrival
Mel Gibson - Hacksaw Ridge
BEST ACTOR
Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
Andrew Garfield - Hacksaw Ridge
Ryan Gosling - La La Land
Denzel Washington - Fences
Viggo Mortensen - Captain Fantastic
BEST ACTRESS
Isabelle Huppert - Elle
Ruth Negga - Loving
Natalie Portman - Jackie
Emma Stone - La La Land
Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Mahershala Ali - Moonlight
Jeff Bridges - Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges - Manchester by the Sea
Dev Patel - Lion
Michael Shannon - Nocturnal Animals
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Viola Davis - Fences
Naomie Harris - Moonlight
Nicole Kidman - Lion
Octavia Spencer - Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams - Manchester by the Sea
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Damien Chazelle - La La Land
Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou - The Lobster
Kenneth Lonergan - Manchester by the Sea
Taylor Sheridan - Hell or High Water
Mike Mills - 20th Century Women
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Moonlight
Fences
Hidden Figures
Lion
Arrival
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Kubo and the Two Strings
Moana
The Red Turtle
Zootopia
My Life as a Zucchini
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Arrival, Bradford Young
La La Land, Linus Sandgren
Lion, Greig Fraser
Moonlight, James Laxton
Silence, Rodrigo Prieto
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Damien Chazelle - La La Land
Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou - The Lobster
Kenneth Lonergan - Manchester by the Sea
Taylor Sheridan - Hell or High Water
Mike Mills - 20th Century Women
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Moonlight
Fences
Hidden Figures
Lion
Arrival
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Kubo and the Two Strings
Moana
The Red Turtle
Zootopia
My Life as a Zucchini
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Arrival, Bradford Young
La La Land, Linus Sandgren
Lion, Greig Fraser
Moonlight, James Laxton
Silence, Rodrigo Prieto
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Allied
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them
Florence Foster Jenkins
Jackie
La La Land
BEST DOCUMENTARY
Fire At Sea
I Am Not Your Negro
Life, Animated
OJ: Made In America
13th
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
Extremis
4.1 Miles
Joe's Violin
Watani: My Homeland
The White Helmets
BEST FILM EDITING
Arrival
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell Or High Water
La La Land
Moonlight
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Land Of Mine, Denmark
A Man Called Ove, Sweden
The Salesman, Iran
Tanna, Australia
Toni Erdmann, Germany
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
A Man Called Ove
Star Trek Beyond
Suicide Squad
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Jackie, Mica Levi
La La Land, Justin Hurwitz
Lion, Dustin O'Halloran
Moonlight, Nicholas Britell
Passengers, Thomas Newman
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Audition (The Fools Who Dream), La La Land
Can't Stop The Feeling, Trolls
City Of Stars, La La Land
The Empty Chair, Jim: The James Foley Story
How Far I'll Go, Moana
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Arrival
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them
Hail, Caesar!
La La Land
Passengers
BEST ANIMATED SHORT
Blind Vaysha, Theodore Ushev
Borrowed Time, Andrew Coats
Pear Cider And Cigarettes, Robert Valley
Pearl, Patrick Osborne
Piper, Alan Barillaro
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
Ennemis Interieurs
La Femme Et Le TGV
Silent Nights
Sing
Timecode
BEST SOUND EDITING
Arrival
Deepwater Horizon
Hacksaw Ridge
La La Land
Sully
BEST SOUND MIXING
Arrival
Hacksaw Ridge
La La Land
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers Of Benghazi
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Deepwater Horizon
Doctor Strange
The Jungle Book
Kubo And The Two Strings
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
BEST PICTURE
Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester by the Sea
Moonlight
:: La La Land leads diverse Oscar nominations
BEST DIRECTOR
Damien Chazelle - La La Land
Barry Jenkins - Moonlight
Kenneth Lonergan - Manchester by the Sea
Denis Villeneuve - Arrival
Mel Gibson - Hacksaw Ridge
BEST ACTOR
Casey Affleck - Manchester by the Sea
Andrew Garfield - Hacksaw Ridge
Ryan Gosling - La La Land
Denzel Washington - Fences
Viggo Mortensen - Captain Fantastic
BEST ACTRESS
Isabelle Huppert - Elle
Ruth Negga - Loving
Natalie Portman - Jackie
Emma Stone - La La Land
Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Mahershala Ali - Moonlight
Jeff Bridges - Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges - Manchester by the Sea
Dev Patel - Lion
Michael Shannon - Nocturnal Animals
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Viola Davis - Fences
Naomie Harris - Moonlight
Nicole Kidman - Lion
Octavia Spencer - Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams - Manchester by the Sea
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Damien Chazelle - La La Land
Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou - The Lobster
Kenneth Lonergan - Manchester by the Sea
Taylor Sheridan - Hell or High Water
Mike Mills - 20th Century Women
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Moonlight
Fences
Hidden Figures
Lion
Arrival
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Kubo and the Two Strings
Moana
The Red Turtle
Zootopia
My Life as a Zucchini
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Arrival, Bradford Young
La La Land, Linus Sandgren
Lion, Greig Fraser
Moonlight, James Laxton
Silence, Rodrigo Prieto
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Damien Chazelle - La La Land
Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou - The Lobster
Kenneth Lonergan - Manchester by the Sea
Taylor Sheridan - Hell or High Water
Mike Mills - 20th Century Women
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Moonlight
Fences
Hidden Figures
Lion
Arrival
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Kubo and the Two Strings
Moana
The Red Turtle
Zootopia
My Life as a Zucchini
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Arrival, Bradford Young
La La Land, Linus Sandgren
Lion, Greig Fraser
Moonlight, James Laxton
Silence, Rodrigo Prieto
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Allied
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them
Florence Foster Jenkins
Jackie
La La Land
BEST DOCUMENTARY
Fire At Sea
I Am Not Your Negro
Life, Animated
OJ: Made In America
13th
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
Extremis
4.1 Miles
Joe's Violin
Watani: My Homeland
The White Helmets
BEST FILM EDITING
Arrival
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell Or High Water
La La Land
Moonlight
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Land Of Mine, Denmark
A Man Called Ove, Sweden
The Salesman, Iran
Tanna, Australia
Toni Erdmann, Germany
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
A Man Called Ove
Star Trek Beyond
Suicide Squad
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Jackie, Mica Levi
La La Land, Justin Hurwitz
Lion, Dustin O'Halloran
Moonlight, Nicholas Britell
Passengers, Thomas Newman
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Audition (The Fools Who Dream), La La Land
Can't Stop The Feeling, Trolls
City Of Stars, La La Land
The Empty Chair, Jim: The James Foley Story
How Far I'll Go, Moana
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Arrival
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them
Hail, Caesar!
La La Land
Passengers
BEST ANIMATED SHORT
Blind Vaysha, Theodore Ushev
Borrowed Time, Andrew Coats
Pear Cider And Cigarettes, Robert Valley
Pearl, Patrick Osborne
Piper, Alan Barillaro
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
Ennemis Interieurs
La Femme Et Le TGV
Silent Nights
Sing
Timecode
BEST SOUND EDITING
Arrival
Deepwater Horizon
Hacksaw Ridge
La La Land
Sully
BEST SOUND MIXING
Arrival
Hacksaw Ridge
La La Land
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers Of Benghazi
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Deepwater Horizon
Doctor Strange
The Jungle Book
Kubo And The Two Strings
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)