Syrian Peace Talks off to a Bumpy Start

After the declaration of the cease fire in December 2016, Peace talks were held in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, on January 23. Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Syria all sent delegates to represent their respective countries in the peace talks. The United States did not send a delegate because all staff was needed in the white house to accompany the transition after the inauguration. Instead, the ambassador to Kazakhstan attended the talks as simply a viewer. The hope is that these talks will hope to clarify and clean up the cease fire agreement from last month between the three sponsor countries: Russia, Syria, and Turkey. The rebels, backed by Turkey, have been struggling ever since the forfeiture of eastern Aleppo, one of five main cities that the rebels occupied. Until the ceasefire, Russia was launching air strikes on Aleppo to drive out any remaining rebels. Unfortunately, on the first day of the talks, the “diplomatic talks quickly devolved into harsh words and competing accusations” (Barnard, First Day of Syria Peace Talks Quickly Descends into Quarreling). The bickering began after the rebels called out the government for being a “bloody despotic regime” and then climaxed when the government accused the rebels of being an armed terrorist group. The next days were also met with little success, but there was little hope for any positive outcomes from this conference because of the coming conference in Geneva. There is more hope for a successful treaty at this conference because it a UN sponsored meeting with representatives from all countries and groups who have been involved in the 6 year conflict. Salma Abdelaziz, writer for CNN, believes that in Geneva, countries will come to an agreement because they have been having secret meetings to discuss different plans of action or results of the treaty negotiations. Unfortunately, it was announced that the Geneva conference will be postponed indefinitely and hopefully there will be word soon about why they postponed the conference and when it will now be.

Quint Heaton

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/middleeast/syria-kazakhstan-talks/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/middleeast/syria-peace-talks-astana/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/middleeast/syria-astana-talks-russia-turkey.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-not-sending-a-delegation-to-syria-peace-talks/2017/01/21/7e42cc5c-dff8-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.940aade5d0cd

Trump's Travel Ban: Its Implications and the Global Reaction

This Friday, President Trump signed an executive order banning passport holders from seven “countries of concern” in the Middle East. Since then, a plethora of information has been circulated regarding the exact implications of the order, and the reactions from various authorities internationally. With this blog post, I hope to present all that you need to know in an unbiased fashion.

THE DIRECT IMPLICATIONS:

1.    President Trump’s executive order bans passport holders from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days.

2.    The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is suspended for 120 in order to give the Department of Homeland Security time to refine and improve the vetting process. Those refugees already in the process of being cleared, must wait and be cleared by the new process implemented after the 120-day period.

3.    Acceptance of refugees from Syria is suspended until the president, whether it is Trump or a future president, deems “that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest”.

4.    In fiscal year 2017, only 50,000 refugees will be permitted entry into the US, “until such time as [the president determines] that additional admissions would be in the national interest”. This is less than half of the current level of 110,000. Furthermore, 36,722 refugees from the countries outlined in number 1 were accepted into the United States in fiscal year 2016, 43% of the total refugees admitted to the US that year (see chart).

5.    After the 90-day ban (see number 1) has expired, the Department of Homeland Security may admit refugees on a case-by-case basis if they determine “the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest”. The document cites religious persecution, preexisting international agreements, and causing a person already in transit an undue hardship as reasons for admitting refugees.

6.    After 100 days and 200 days, the Department of Homeland Security is required to submit two reports on the progress of the directive, and is also required to determine in what ways state and local governments can intervene to take action regarding refugees in their jurisdiction.

7.    According to a senior Department of Homeland Security official, as of 6:00 AM on January 29^th, 109 people had been denied entry to the US nationwide. Another 173 had been disallowed from boarding planes to the US at foreign airports, and 81 waivers have been granted to green-card holders as a result of case-by-case review.

THE REACTIONS:

Trump’s divisive executive order caused much discourse domestically and internationally.

1.    Ann Donnelly, a federal judge, blocked the deportation of anyone currently in the US as a result of the executive order.

2.    Speaker of the House Paul Ryan defended the order, “This is not a religious test, and it is not a ban on people of any religion … This order does not affect the vast majority of Muslims in the world.”

3.    Protesters showed up to international airports around the country to support those detained in Customs. Also, lawyers volunteered their services to those detained, citing Judge Donnelly’s order as reason for them to see the detainees.

4.    UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn called for the cancellation of Donald Trump’s visit to the UK until the executive order is lifted. UK Prime Minister Theresa May has not yet made a personal comment regarding Trump’s travel ban.

5.    Despite reports stating otherwise, Iran is not banning US citizens from entering the country. On Saturday, January 28^th, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted, “Unlike the U.S., our decision is not retroactive. All with valid Iranian visa will be gladly welcomed.” The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also put out a statement condemning the order. Here is a link to that statement.

These are just a sample of some of the reaction to the executive order, I encourage you to check Twitter to see where your local and state legislators stand on the issue, as well as the attitude of people around the globe. Hopefully, with all the information gathered, you will be able to determine your stance on the issue and act accordingly.

- Isaac Kaufman (ID: ikaufman6)


Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-jeremy-corbyn-uk-mp-immigration-policy-theresa-may-response-a7551636.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/trump-immigration-refugees-visa-policy/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/president-trumps-travel-ban-is-causing-chaos-dont-expect-him-to-back-down/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-challenge-trumps-executive-order/2017/01/28/e69501a2-e562-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/middleeast/iran-will-ban-us-citizens/

Egyptian film draws audiences and controversy

The Egyptian film Mawlana (our preacher) is drawing large audiences and criticism from Sunni Muslim leaders, some of whom argue that the box office hit should be banned. Set during the rule of Hosni Mubarak, the film follows the life of Shaykh Hatem, a cleric from al-Azhar, Cairo's 1,000 year old center of Islamic learning who becomes a popular televangelist with millions of followers.

At issue for religious leaders is the portrayal of Hatem who increasingly subordinates his sense of morality to the cynical and sometimes corrupt dictates of senior state officials before ultimately having a change of heart. The film touches on some particularly fraught issues for Egypt including the complicated relationship between the state, the religious establishment, and “extremism” and sectarian tensions (the film climaxes with the bombing of a Christian church by Islam radical; which had its real life parallel in the suicide bombing of the Coptic Cathedral in Cairo the day after the film opened). The film's opponents contend that it tarnishes the reputation of thousands of Egypt’s clerics who work within the official religious establishment.

The film is based on the book of the same name by journalist Ibrahim Issa.
Here is the cover of the English translation

"Works that address religious texts should be reviewed by religious institutions before being made into films," Shoukri el-Guindi, a member of the parliament's Religious Affairs Committee, wrote on Facebook. "Inside these institutions, there are wise people who love their religion and their homeland, not ones who only follow their personal interests." He said religious scholars should not be turned into film characters and that their sanctity must be respected, asking, "Will the public follow these religious scholars if they are portrayed as lustful figures … and hypocrites?"

The controversy has both a present and historical context. The Egyptian state has a long record of tolerating or co-opting particular religious groups or expressions of piety and suppressing others to bolster its own power and legitimacy. In 1954 president Gamal ‘Abdel Nasser outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, then one of the most powerful political parties in Egypt. In the early 1960s, he brought al-Azhar, one of the oldest and most important universities for the training of religious professionals under state control. Turning away from the secular, Arab Socialist orientation of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat used appeals to religion and eased restrictions on the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups as a counterweight to secular opposition. Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak, further politicized religion and increased state control over both Muslim and Christian institutions.


Egypt’s current president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a former army chief, overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013 and is still battling radical Islamists. The Brotherhood was declared a terrorist organization and Egyptian courts have jailed thousands of its followers. al-Sisi has assigned al-Azhar a primary role in promoting a “more moderate” Islam. Who speaks for Islam? How do questions of faith and identity become politicized and contested between various groups? What role does the state play in determining what is appropriate and inappropriate thought and behavior for individual citizens. These are questions we will continue to explore over the course of the semester.

Laura Bier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IaKxXC5sgg (Subtitled trailer)

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/01/egypt-film-controversy-religious-scholars-mawlana.html#ixzz4WiaquMFw

http://www.madamasr.com/en/2017/01/15/feature/culture/three-takes-on-mawlana-a-timely-film-that-plays-it-safe/

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2017/01/10/609515/

Jeremiah Dir

Israel Approves 2500+ New Settlements in West Bank 

Just today, Prime Minister Netanyahu approved the construction of approximately 2500 housing units in the West Bank area. This comes from a statement made by Defense Minister Liberman. This expansion is one of the largest since 2013. The announcement comes just days after Trump was inaugurated. The timing of the announcement likely depended on Netanyahu's recent meeting with the Donald, which Trump described as "warm", as the Israeli PM has been invited back to the White House in early February.

Palestinian President Abbas denounced the decision, quote, "The decision is condemned and rejected, and it will be followed by consequences." 

Along with the Palestinian denouncement, this expansion comes just a week after a group of world leaders in Paris warned Israel to stop expanding, lest they risk more instability and violence in the region. This conference of over 70 world leaders supports a two-state solution, a solution which Netanyahu has supported on paper. However, his continuation of aggressive expansionist policies shows otherwise. 

Not only has these world leaders condemned Israel, the UN Security Council recently passed a resolution condemning Israel's existing settlements in the West Back as a "flagrant violation of international law". Secretary of State John Kerry also rebuked the Israeli expansion, saying, "The status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation". 

The Israeli government stated their reasoning behind the expansion is to meet expanding housing needs. However, this has been dismissed as an excuse to break international condemnations and resolutions by continuing to expand their colonial rule. However, with an American president who will support Israel no matter what, Israel presses on with their aggressive strategy of expansion and military development. 

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/middleeast/israel-approves-west-bank-construction/index.html

BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38734956

Yahoo News:https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-approves-2-500-west-bank-settler-homes-140446775.html

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/world/middleeast/israel-settlement-expansion-west-bank.html?_r=0