What no comments on the Iraq panel's report.

  • News
  • Thread starter Amp1
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Report
The conversation is discussing the findings of the Iraq panel report, which highlights the failure of the "Stay the course" strategy and the need for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The report also suggests engaging Iran and Syria in finding a solution for Iraq. The conversation then shifts to discussing the recognition of Palestine as a state by various countries and the role of Egypt and Jordan in creating a Palestinian state. The expert summarizer notes that the report mentions the need for a comprehensive peace agreement and engaging Iran and Syria, and the fact that Ahmadinejad has called for wiping Israel off the map. The expert also points out that Egypt and Jordan have not taken action to create a Palestinian state, and that Gaza was left under Israeli control in the Camp-D
  • #1
Amp1
The Iraq panel has spoken. Although Bush doesn't appear to be paying attention-(Washinton Post> Bush says he wants to consider strategies/policies other or differnt than those presented to him by the panel.) The panel's report appears to be concuring with what the majority of US citezens have made plain. This revisited Vietnam scenario and the incompetence behind the planning for this uncalled for conflict needs to be addressed and resolved. Preferably by level, intellegent, noncovetous tactics and new open-minded policies. I'm no expert but I would seek advice from the former Sec. of State Colin Powell for ways to (hopefully) gracefully exit Iraq. :cool:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120700162.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The report says that "Stay the course" isn't working. Big Whoop! Bush already cut and ran from that slogan a while ago. Their proposal for fixing things is "Israel should be wiped off the map". I wonder if we can get Ahmadinejad to go along with that.
 
  • #3
Of course the proposed peace agreement is synonymous with wiping Israel off the map to those who insist on Israel continuing to plunder what little is left of Palestine. However, those who respect human rights understand that we need to stand firm on the two state solution proposed in the Iraq panel if we ever want to be accepted as anything but a bunch of barbarous hypocrites.
 
  • #4
kyleb said:
Of course the proposed peace agreement is synonymous with wiping Israel off the map to those who insist on Israel continuing to plunder what little is left of Palestine.
Whether or not jimmysnyder's remark is warranted, your response is inappropriate. It is an ad hominem attack.
 
  • #5
kyleb said:
Of course the proposed peace agreement is synonymous with wiping Israel off the map to those who insist on Israel continuing to plunder what little is left of Palestine.
Bringing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is synonymous with wiping Israel off the map to Ahmadinejad. If, in the process of looking for a way out of Iraq, we intend to bring Iran into the picture and we intend to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the picture, then only one conclusion can be drawn. I drew it.

If it brings any comfort to you, I disagree with Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. However, I note that Israel would be tasked with providing the Palestinians a state out of land that was taken from Egypt and Jordan. While in the matter of Iraq we are cautioned against drawing artificial political lines in the sand, Israel is castigated for not doing so. Obviously it was and still is the job of Egypt and Jordan to create such a state, of course with the cooperation and aid of Israel. But whether Israel is willing to help is yet a moot point, Egypt and Jordan have not asked. I note that Jordan has officially rejected sovereignty over the West Bank, I have to admit, I do not know the status of Gaza with respect to Egypt. Any Palestinian (I assume you are one) knows well the duplicity of these two countries in the matter of their national aspirations.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
I am an American, but I know that Egypt, Jordan, and Iran all recognize Palestine as a state, as does much of the world to one extent or another; Israel being a notably flagrant exception. Regardless, I'm curious to know what set you off on your your Ahmadinejad spiel, as the topic here is the Iraqi panel report and best I can tell it mentions nothing of the sort.
 
  • #7
kyleb said:
I am an American
Please accept my apology. I have read previous posts of yours and made an unjustified assumption.

kyleb said:
Egypt, Jordan, and Iran all recognize Palestine as a state.
In general, I cannot justify the mutual hypocrisy on display by all countries in the state recognition game. However, Palestine is not a state. I hope that this will change.

kyleb said:
Regardless, I'm curious to know what set you off on your your Ahmadinejad spiel, as the topic here is the Iraqi panel report and best I can tell it mentions nothing of the sort.
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Nothing of what sort? However, the report certainly does mention the points I referred to:

Baker Report said:
Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events in Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.

Baker Report said:
There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-iraq_study_group.pdf

My post brought together these two parts of the report.

I note that Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran and that he has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. My post tied in these facts as well. While they are not mentioned in the report, no effective analysis of the report can have value without bringing in facts from the real world.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
jimmysnyder said:
I do not know the status of Gaza with respect to Egypt.
Gaza was left under Israeli control in the Camp-David accords between Israel and Egypt.
 
  • #9
kyleb said:
I am an American, but I know that Egypt, Jordan, and Iran all recognize Palestine as a state, as does much of the world to one extent or another; Israel being a notably flagrant exception.
Did these countries recognize Palestine when it was in the Arab countries' hands?
 
  • #10
Kyleb, I'm sorry I didn't bring this up in my previous post, but as you had questioned the relevency of my post to the Baker report, I feel compelled to ask why you brought up the issue of recognition of Palestine. Recognition is not brought up in the Baker report. Is there a connection?
 
  • #11
The relevance is in the fact that you claimed "it was and still is the job of Egypt and Jordan to create such a state"; when in fact both nations are among the many that do recognize Palestine as a state and the pressing issue here is that Israel is continuing to colonize Palestinian land under force of military occupation. As for the Baker report, it most certainly did not suggest ""Israel should be wiped off the map" or anything of the sort, but rather quite plainly (and in what you quoted no less) insisted on the need for a two state solution. But then Ahmadinejad never actually call for Israel to be wiped off the map either, and Iran supports reaching a two state solution as well, but of course such facts can easily go unnoticed if you get your news from people who would rather seeing Palestinian land continue to be colonized under force of military occupation.

And Yonoz, the declaration of statehood was in 1988.
 
  • #12
kyleb said:
Ahmadinejad never actually call for Israel to be wiped off the map either.
Israel wiped from the stage of time rather than wiped off the map. Now there is a distinction without a difference.
 
  • #13
The distinction is in the fact that he didn't say "Israel" but rather he said "the regime occupying Jerusalem"; and the difference is that Israel is a state rather than a regime.
 
  • #14
jimmysnyder said:
Israel wiped from the stage of time rather than wiped off the map. Now there is a distinction without a difference.

There is a subtle difference and the dispute over 'map' vs 'time' clouds it.

Ahmadinejad feels the current Israeli regime should be eliminated from the stage of time, not Israel. That would be similar to the US feeling Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated, but wanting to preserve Iraq as a country.

That's not to pretend Ahmadinejad isn't hostile to Israel, because he is hostile, dangerous to both Israel and US interests, and possibly dangerous to the Middle East in general. But, one interpretation presents Ahmadinejad as dangerous adversary that must be defended against. The other presents Ahmadinejad as a villain that has to be eliminated at any cost.

The truth is that some sort of resolution that would be acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians (if that's even possible) might provide an atmosphere in which the attitude of all Middle Eastern regimes would be drastically different than their current attitudes, which is what I think the Baker report was getting at. It's going to be hard to get any kind of Middle Eastern consensus on what to do about Iraq if they can't resolve the Israel-Palestine issues.

Of course, that, too, could be interpreted two different ways: 1) "We need to resolve Israel-Palestine issues quickly", or 2) "Hah! You're dreaming if you think anyone in the Middle East will agree what to do about Iraq!"
 
  • #15
BobG said:
Ahmadinejad feels the current Israeli regime should be eliminated from the stage of time, not Israel. That would be similar to the US feeling Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated, but wanting to preserve Iraq as a country.
Not exactly. He did say Israel should be relocated to Europe. Are his various remarks to be understood in conjunction, or as unconnected?
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/357868 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Jimmy, why do you countenue to distort the distinction between the Zionist regime and the state of Israel?
 
  • #17
kyleb said:
But then Ahmadinejad never actually call for Israel to be wiped off the map either, and Iran supports reaching a two state solution as well, but of course such facts can easily go unnoticed if you get your news from people who would rather seeing Palestinian land continue to be colonized under force of military occupation.
Nice opinion pieces. I especially liked this guy's approach:
In June, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, declared that "Iran shares a common view with Arab countries about the most important Islamic-Arabic issue, namely the issue of Palestine". That means that Iran accepts the Arab League position: normalisation of relations if Israel withdraws to the international border.
I guess you don't need to mistranslate Farsi to fool people.

kyleb said:
And Yonoz, the declaration of statehood was in 1988.
Oh that's right, silly me. Why did they wait over 40 years? Did they not mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Palestine_Government" [Broken]?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
BobG said:
But, one interpretation presents Ahmadinejad as dangerous adversary that must be defended against. The other presents Ahmadinejad as a villain that has to be eliminated at any cost.
How's that?
 
  • #20
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
kyleb said:
Jimmy, why do you countenue to distort the distinction between the Zionist regime and the state of Israel?
He said that the state of Israel should be relocated to Europe. I think he means the entire country and not just the government. If you believe he meant the government should be relocated to Europe then you think differently than I. Your characterization of that difference is unfair to me.
 
  • #22
Yonoz said:
Your source shows it hasn't:
Bit further down the page:
The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

jimmysnyder said:
He said that the state of Israel should be relocated to Europe.
No, in your link he is quoted as saying "Zionist regime", not "state of Israel."
 
  • #23
kyleb said:
Bit further down the page:
I don't see anything there to support your statement:
kyleb said:
The truth is that Iran has been backing the two state solution for years.
All it says is Iran was willing to put the "acceptance of the Saudi initiative" "on the agenda" - i.e. as far as this source is concerned, Iran never accepted the Saudi initiative and has never backed a two state solution.
 
  • #24
Pardon the late response, but putting the Saudi initiative on the agenda is backing the concept of a two state solution, at least far more than Israel is as long as the settlements continue expanding into what little is left of Palestine. Until Israel stops exprorating land, Iran can't rightly back the Saudi initiative with anything more than by putting it on the table.
 
  • #25
kyleb said:
Pardon the late response, but putting the Saudi initiative on the agenda is backing the concept of a two state solution, at least far more than Israel is as long as the settlements continue expanding into what little is left of Palestine.
Umm, putting any initiative on the table does not constitute any form of backing. Israel has backed and acted towards a two state solution in ways that I'm sure I do not need to list here. While settlement growth is illegal and a major obstacle to peace, it would be a lot easier for the Israeli peace camp to end this practice if Israelis had more trust in the Palestinians - and that's why trust-building is what's needed right now. I think most people who are not Israelis nor Jews and have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do not trust Muslims leaders, be it for a good cause or not, so I don't see how you can preach to us who have been fighting for our survival against our Muslim neighbors for over a century. IMHO the settlements are the most peaceful anti-Muslim phenomenon in the western world, certainly more peaceful than what's been done by the opposite side's extremists. While http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804569.html" [Broken], theirs are released by Israel only to join in on the latest fighting in Gaza (and we were always told Palestinian security forces could not confront Hamas - hah!).
kyleb said:
Until Israel stops exprorating land, Iran can't rightly back the Saudi initiative with anything more than by putting it on the table.
Nonsense. The Saudis back it and Iran can't?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
How do you figure the Saudis are backing it beyond putting it on the table? Unless Israel ever accepts the conditions, it remains just an offer.
 

1. Why are there no comments on the Iraq panel's report?

There could be several reasons for the lack of comments on the Iraq panel's report. It is possible that the report has not received enough attention or media coverage to prompt public discussion. Additionally, the report may be considered too controversial or complex for the general public to understand or engage with. It is also possible that the individuals or organizations who would typically comment on such reports have chosen not to do so for various reasons.

2. Did the Iraq panel's report receive any feedback or criticism?

It is likely that the Iraq panel's report did receive some feedback or criticism, though it may not have been widely reported or discussed. Government officials and experts in the field of foreign policy and international relations may have provided their thoughts and opinions on the report, but these may not have been covered by mainstream media outlets.

3. What were the main findings of the Iraq panel's report?

The Iraq panel's report, also known as the Iraq Study Group Report, was released in 2006 and aimed to provide an independent assessment of the situation in Iraq. The report highlighted several key findings, including the need for a new approach to the war in Iraq, the recommendation of a gradual withdrawal of US combat forces, and the importance of diplomatic efforts and regional cooperation in achieving stability in the region.

4. Who was involved in the creation of the Iraq panel's report?

The Iraq panel's report was created by a bipartisan, ten-member panel appointed by the US Congress in 2006. The panel, also known as the Iraq Study Group, was led by co-chairs James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton and included members from both political parties and various backgrounds, such as foreign policy experts, former government officials, and military leaders.

5. Has the Iraq panel's report had any impact on US policies or actions in Iraq?

The Iraq panel's report has had some impact on US policies and actions in Iraq, though it is difficult to determine the extent of its influence. Some of the report's recommendations, such as the gradual withdrawal of US combat forces and increased diplomatic efforts, were eventually implemented. However, the situation in Iraq remains complex and ongoing, and it is difficult to attribute specific policy changes solely to the report.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K
Back
Top