Condi NYT Quote Fabricated? Not So Fast
Charles Johnson reports that the quote from Secretary Rice to the effect that Israeli withdrawal could not be from "Gaza only" - a quote blasted across the right side of the blogosphere, including here - was fabricated. He links to Rick Richman at Jewish Current Issues:
On the day of the Times story, a commenter at LibertyPost.org posted this comment: "This just doesn't sound right, or like Dr Rice. . . . She doesn't screw up like this." Indeed, it didn’t . . . she doesn’t . . .and in fact the Times made the quote up.
Wrong in the premise and wrong in the conclusion. This sounds exactly like Secretary Rice and the Times was certainly not taking her out of context when they quoted her to mean that the State Department will seek more unilateral concessions from Israel.
Wrong in the premise - Rice has been exerting significant, undue, and unreasonable pressure on Israel almost since the announcement of the disengagement plan:
* She demanded that Israel give the Palestinians weapons
* She insisted that Israel not provoke the Palestinians by strengthening West Bank settlements
* She pressured Israel in a way even the UN thinks is unfair, by taking the totally unnecessary and unprecedented step of suggesting that Israel strengthen Hezbollah by giving them land from the base of the Golan Heights.
So it sounds exactly like Secretary Rice. As to the conclusions, Richman has two main points: (1) Rice did not say that she thought that it couldn't be "Gaza only", she was quoting other people and (2) that Rice was actually much harder on the Palestinians than the times reported (i.e. "Rice emphasized the dismantlement of Palestinian terrorism four times"). His conclusion is that Rice actually took a hard-line stance against the Palestinians.
We'll deal with the second point first. Richman's point is that Rice's repeated insistence on the Palestinians' Roadmap obligations to dismantle terrorism proves that she was taking a hard-line stance:
Instead of manufacturing a lead quote to fit their own priority, the Times might have informed its readers that Rice emphasized the dismantlement of Palestinian terrorism four times -- in response to questions from the Times that sought to emphasize next steps by Israel.
The problem is that while Rice did say the Palestinians are obligated under the Roadmap to dismantle terrorism (something which is obviously and undeniably true according to any statement the Quartet has ever put out), she explicitly and repeatedly de-linked Israeli concessions from that obligation. She essentially embraced the old Oslo formula - Israel has to make more concessions while the Palestinians try (and often "fail") to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. From the State Department transcript, the conclusion of her very first comment about the Roadmap is:
Then the question is how do you build on that? What do you do with that? And the roadmap is there. There are certain obligations for both sides in the roadmap. Even Prime Minister Sharon said at one point that he thought that this might reenergize, I think he said, the roadmap. And at the very minimum, I think you want to try to return to the obligations in the roadmap and to continue to move, but there are also things that are going to be happening in parallel in terms of the continued emergence and strengthening of these Palestinian institutions.
According to Secretary Rice, "the continued emergence and strengthening of these Palestinian institutions" is to happen "in parallel" to their Roadmap obligation of dismantling terrorism. So it doesn't matter how many times Rice says that the Palestinians are obligated to dismantle terrorism because the Roadmap moves ahead anyway! And what does strengthening Palestinian intuitions mean according to Rice? Well, she's been very clear that it means giving weapons to the Palestinians. The conclusion is inescapable: the Palestinians are indeed obligated to dismantle terrorism, but while they're busy doing that, Israel is expected to give them arms.
Think this is a stretch? A couple answers later she becomes even more explicit:
SECRETARY RICE: So the answer to the question, what comes next, is that one of the obligations in the roadmap is that the Palestinian Authority should have unified security forces that are all under the authority of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership, its elected leadership. There will be elections in January. But the Palestinian Authority is going to have to deal with the infrastructure of terrorism, that's one of its obligations.
QUESTION: So the -- is it still then the U.S. position that disarmament, dismantling are the next steps for Israel in the expected steps on the right --
SECRETARY RICE: No, I'm not talking about a sequencing here because the roadmap is assiduously not sequencing one step after another. It gives, in parallel, certain obligations to both sides. And the obligation of the Palestinians has to do with the dismantling of terrorist infrastructure and organizations and they're going to have to do it.
QUESTION: And so what should Israel do right now, after Gaza?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Israelis will have certain obligations as well 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.
This is crystal clear: She considers Israel obligated "right now" to make more concessions - including "handing over cities to the Palestinians" (!!!) She literally interrupts the interviewer to emphatically make the point that the Israelis are not allowed to wait for the Palestinians to actually dismantle terrorism - quite the opposite, "the roadmap is assiduously not sequencing". This is not a hard-line, pro-Israeli stance - it's the old Oslo formula all over again.
Not that it matters at this point, but we think that, given the entire tone of the interview, the Times probably got the Rice quote on "Gaza only" more right than wrong. Here's the full quote again:
SECRETARY RICE: Let's see, you know, what's required. We will have a Quartet in New York because the world comes here for the UNGA. And we'll certainly have a Quartet meeting at that time. There's a Quartet envoys meeting that's scheduled for this week and part of their job is to kind of prepare the meeting of the Quartet and I think we'll look at where we are. But by no means do I think that this is the end.
The other thing is, just to close off this question, the question has been put repeatedly to the Israelis and to us that it cannot be Gaza only and everybody says no, it cannot be Gaza only. There is, after all, even a link to the West Bank and the four settlements that are going to be dismantled in the West Bank. 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.
The second paragraph is in the context of the first. She's not just quoting "everybody" - she's agreeing with them. In an interview where Secretary Rice repeatedly and explicitly said that Israel is obligated to make more concessions in parallel to whatever steps Abbas is taking to dismantle terrorism, she concluded by saying that Gaza is "not the end". The Times may have played fast and loose with ellipses, but they did not take her out of context. And even if we assume that they did - at best, it might make the interview a little less unbalanced - it certainly doesn't make up for the unprecedented pressure that Secretary Rice's State Department has been leveling against Israel in recent months.
On the day of the Times story, a commenter at LibertyPost.org posted this comment: "This just doesn't sound right, or like Dr Rice. . . . She doesn't screw up like this." Indeed, it didn’t . . . she doesn’t . . .and in fact the Times made the quote up.
Wrong in the premise and wrong in the conclusion. This sounds exactly like Secretary Rice and the Times was certainly not taking her out of context when they quoted her to mean that the State Department will seek more unilateral concessions from Israel.
Wrong in the premise - Rice has been exerting significant, undue, and unreasonable pressure on Israel almost since the announcement of the disengagement plan:
* She demanded that Israel give the Palestinians weapons
* She insisted that Israel not provoke the Palestinians by strengthening West Bank settlements
* She pressured Israel in a way even the UN thinks is unfair, by taking the totally unnecessary and unprecedented step of suggesting that Israel strengthen Hezbollah by giving them land from the base of the Golan Heights.
So it sounds exactly like Secretary Rice. As to the conclusions, Richman has two main points: (1) Rice did not say that she thought that it couldn't be "Gaza only", she was quoting other people and (2) that Rice was actually much harder on the Palestinians than the times reported (i.e. "Rice emphasized the dismantlement of Palestinian terrorism four times"). His conclusion is that Rice actually took a hard-line stance against the Palestinians.
We'll deal with the second point first. Richman's point is that Rice's repeated insistence on the Palestinians' Roadmap obligations to dismantle terrorism proves that she was taking a hard-line stance:
Instead of manufacturing a lead quote to fit their own priority, the Times might have informed its readers that Rice emphasized the dismantlement of Palestinian terrorism four times -- in response to questions from the Times that sought to emphasize next steps by Israel.
The problem is that while Rice did say the Palestinians are obligated under the Roadmap to dismantle terrorism (something which is obviously and undeniably true according to any statement the Quartet has ever put out), she explicitly and repeatedly de-linked Israeli concessions from that obligation. She essentially embraced the old Oslo formula - Israel has to make more concessions while the Palestinians try (and often "fail") to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. From the State Department transcript, the conclusion of her very first comment about the Roadmap is:
Then the question is how do you build on that? What do you do with that? And the roadmap is there. There are certain obligations for both sides in the roadmap. Even Prime Minister Sharon said at one point that he thought that this might reenergize, I think he said, the roadmap. And at the very minimum, I think you want to try to return to the obligations in the roadmap and to continue to move, but there are also things that are going to be happening in parallel in terms of the continued emergence and strengthening of these Palestinian institutions.
According to Secretary Rice, "the continued emergence and strengthening of these Palestinian institutions" is to happen "in parallel" to their Roadmap obligation of dismantling terrorism. So it doesn't matter how many times Rice says that the Palestinians are obligated to dismantle terrorism because the Roadmap moves ahead anyway! And what does strengthening Palestinian intuitions mean according to Rice? Well, she's been very clear that it means giving weapons to the Palestinians. The conclusion is inescapable: the Palestinians are indeed obligated to dismantle terrorism, but while they're busy doing that, Israel is expected to give them arms.
Think this is a stretch? A couple answers later she becomes even more explicit:
SECRETARY RICE: So the answer to the question, what comes next, is that one of the obligations in the roadmap is that the Palestinian Authority should have unified security forces that are all under the authority of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership, its elected leadership. There will be elections in January. But the Palestinian Authority is going to have to deal with the infrastructure of terrorism, that's one of its obligations.
QUESTION: So the -- is it still then the U.S. position that disarmament, dismantling are the next steps for Israel in the expected steps on the right --
SECRETARY RICE: No, I'm not talking about a sequencing here because the roadmap is assiduously not sequencing one step after another. It gives, in parallel, certain obligations to both sides. And the obligation of the Palestinians has to do with the dismantling of terrorist infrastructure and organizations and they're going to have to do it.
QUESTION: And so what should Israel do right now, after Gaza?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Israelis will have certain obligations as well 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.
This is crystal clear: She considers Israel obligated "right now" to make more concessions - including "handing over cities to the Palestinians" (!!!) She literally interrupts the interviewer to emphatically make the point that the Israelis are not allowed to wait for the Palestinians to actually dismantle terrorism - quite the opposite, "the roadmap is assiduously not sequencing". This is not a hard-line, pro-Israeli stance - it's the old Oslo formula all over again.
Not that it matters at this point, but we think that, given the entire tone of the interview, the Times probably got the Rice quote on "Gaza only" more right than wrong. Here's the full quote again:
SECRETARY RICE: Let's see, you know, what's required. We will have a Quartet in New York because the world comes here for the UNGA. And we'll certainly have a Quartet meeting at that time. There's a Quartet envoys meeting that's scheduled for this week and part of their job is to kind of prepare the meeting of the Quartet and I think we'll look at where we are. But by no means do I think that this is the end.
The other thing is, just to close off this question, the question has been put repeatedly to the Israelis and to us that it cannot be Gaza only and everybody says no, it cannot be Gaza only. There is, after all, even a link to the West Bank and the four settlements that are going to be dismantled in the West Bank. 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.
The second paragraph is in the context of the first. She's not just quoting "everybody" - she's agreeing with them. In an interview where Secretary Rice repeatedly and explicitly said that Israel is obligated to make more concessions in parallel to whatever steps Abbas is taking to dismantle terrorism, she concluded by saying that Gaza is "not the end". The Times may have played fast and loose with ellipses, but they did not take her out of context. And even if we assume that they did - at best, it might make the interview a little less unbalanced - it certainly doesn't make up for the unprecedented pressure that Secretary Rice's State Department has been leveling against Israel in recent months.
