What no comments on the Iraq panel's report.

[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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120700162.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I am an American

Please accept my apology. I have read previous posts of yours and made an unjustified assumption.

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.

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:

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.

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

 

[Yonoz]

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.

 

[Yonoz]

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?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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?

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[BobG]

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!"

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

 

[kyleb]

Jimmy, why do you countenue to distort the distinction between the Zionist regime and the state of Israel?

 

[Yonoz]

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.

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" ?

 

[Yonoz]

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?

 

[kyleb]

I guess you don't need to mistranslate Farsi to fool people.

Fool how? The truth is that http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html?sub=AR".

 

[Yonoz]

Fool how? The truth is that http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html?sub=AR".

Your source shows it hasn't:

It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

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."

 

[Yonoz]

Bit further down the page:

I don't see anything there to support your statement:

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Yonoz]

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" , 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!).

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?

 

[kyleb]

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.