Better, slightly
Earlier this week, I ripped Secretary of State Rice for having said that, with respect to Israeli withdrawals, "it cannot be Gaza only." As Scott pointed out this morning, however, a review of the transcript of Rice's interview with the New York Times reveals that, in context, she didn't really make that statement. Contrary to the way the New York Times reported the interview, Rice didn't say that it “cannot be Gaza only,” but instead claimed that this is what "everybody" has been saying. Had I known that the Times was quoting Rice out of context, I would not have written my piece the way I did. Having read the transcript, however, I think I still would have criticized Rice.
Here's what happened. The obnoxious Times interviewer, Joel Brinkley, opined that the Gaza withdrawal would probably be the last such development for a while, and that this would cause frustration among the Palestinians. He then asked how Rice would "assure that [the Gaza pullout] is not the last step for a good while." Rice should have answered that it is not her job to assure future Isreali pullouts. Alternatively, she could have said that future movement depends on the Palestinians. Instead, she responded, "You're right, that's a scenario, and our job is not to let that scenario materialize."
After that, Rice engaged in what I consider double-talk. She did say that "the Palestinian Authority is going to have to deal with the infrastructure of terrorism, that's one of its obligations." But she quickly added that "I'm not talking about a sequencing." I understand this to mean that Israel should continue to make concessions irrespective of whether the PA deals with the infrastructure of terrorism. So did the Times reporter, who then asked "what should Israel do right now, after Gaza?" Rice responded that "the Israelis will have certain obligations. . .about the continued freeing of Palestinian movement and conditions on the West Bank. That's one of the obligations. I think that we would hope that there is progress again on the Sharm agenda where the Israelis, if you remember, were handing over cities to the Palestinians." Then after her ambiguous, misreported statement about "everybody" saying "it cannot be Gaza only," she concluded that "everybody, I believe, understands that what we're trying to do is to create momentum toward reenergizing the roadmap and through that momentum toward the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state."
I read Rice's statements as meaning that the U.S. expects Israel to make more concessions and that this expectation is not entirely contingent on what the Palestinians do. (Note that the U.S. can often influence what Israel does, but lacks a parallel capability with respect to the Palestinians, so that the meaningful pressure we exert tends to be on Israel only). If I'm right, Rice's actual remarks are not much better than her remarks as reported by the Times.
