Perfecting the Unifying Theory

 By Ted Belman (originally written in Apr 2003)

Further to my Unifying Theory 2003, one important element was not factored in and as a result, the theory made Bush out to be nefarious or diabolical. It did not account for the fact that Bush and the neo cons were friendly to Israel as an alley and fellow democracy. So this too has to be factored in.

In Bush’s speech of June ’02, wherein he articulated a “vision of two states”, he prefaced his remarks by saying,

For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many, hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region. For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East.

The last line is the most important. Everything must be seen in the broader context of creating a new Middle East.

I’ve said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media, and publicly denounce homicide bombings. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel — including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Every nation actually committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups, and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.

How much more specific can he get.

Leaders who want to be included in the peace process must show by their deeds an undivided support for peace. And as we move toward a peaceful solution, Arab states will be expected to build closer ties of diplomacy and commerce with Israel, leading to full normalization of relations between Israel and the entire Arab world. 

We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees, and a final peace between Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and a Syria that supports peace and fights terror. 

We all cheered at these remarks but focused on Israel rather than the Middle East.

On March ’03, on the eve of war, Bush made another key speech in which he opened with,

We have reached a hopeful moment for progress toward the vision of Middle Eastern peace that I outlined last June. 

[…]And the Arab states must oppose terrorism, support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine and state clearly that they will live in peace with Israel.

Those of us who vigorously oppose the Road Map and the Quartet’s involvement view these things in the context of the present Middle East. Bush on the other hand sees them in the context of a new Middle East.

The vision of two states is part of a larger vision of a peaceful Middle East. There won’t be the first without the latter.

In this context, the majority of Israelis and Jews would accept the vision even if it meant something close to the ’67 borders so long as there was truly a New Middle East.

Bush realizes, that to effect the changes he has in mind for the Middle East, he must be “evenhanded” in the solution to the Palestinian problem. This essentially means a deal along the lines of the Barak offer or maybe Taba. But rest assured, it will be done in the context of Bush’s Middle East vision. I think, I hope.

Even today Aluf Benn reports in Ha’aretz

A communique received in Jerusalem from the American administration this week says the United States is operating with strong resolution to neutralize the Iraqi threat to Israel. After the war, the message continued, the United States will deal with other radical regimes in the region – not necessarily by military means – to moderate their activities and fight terrorism.

These current and future U.S. operations will also serve Israel, the American administration says, but have caused tensions between the United States and the Arab world. Israel, the American message says, must play its part to help ease these tensions by taking action with regard to settlements in the territories.

So he makes it clear Israel is being sacrificed to appease the Arabs. This has nothing to do with rights, or blame. It just makes America’s job easier .

The problem as I see it, is that until such time as the US establishes the new ME, Israel has to proceed on trust even to the point of finalyzing the Palestinian state in 2 years. Since in my theory, the Road Map is linked to the New Middle East, it should really be a Road Map for ME peace of which the resolution of the Palestinian/Israel conflict is a part. Surely, it is not too much to ask that progress be made on all fronts at the same time.

I believe that Israel will resist this Road Map in the hope it won’t be imposed and enforced. Israel would far prefer a more favourable solution on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security. But if Bush resists all pressure from Congress and Senate, then Israel should try to have it proceed as the neighborhood improves.

Now you know the end game. Its plain for all to see. My updated unifying theory is correct and now complete. Bush has been working toward that vision since 9/11. Everything points to it.