That is precisely what I fear.
Her stand must be blessed by W.There's absolutely positively no doubt whatsoever that President Bush believes that as many territorial disputes as possible, including those in Jerusalem, should be settled bilaterally. The Administration has even expressed misgivings over "disengagement" for this reason. Its views have been clear and consistent in this regard for four years.That is precisely what I fear.
There's also no doubt whatsoever that this Administration is committed to the defense of the Nation of Israel.
Bush and Rice certainly want progress towards peace to continue. Considering the US's commitment to Israel and specifically the amount of money we have paid to keep her secure, we have the perogative to comment on actions which we believe are non-conducive to peace. To illustrate the point with an extreme example, if NRP were to win the election and begin expanding "security zones" around settlements in the West Bank, the US would certainly object, with cause. I think most of us would understand why.
It sounds to me like Rice is objecting to the "absentee property" laws. IIRC, these are the laws which state that if land is not used for three years, it is nationalized by Israel. These laws are grossly offensive in both principle and practice. This is particularly the case when Palis are kept from using their land for either "security" reasons, or due to out and out harrasment as was reported near Itamar.
They are way too vulnerable to abuse and are certainly antithetical to the concept of private property. If Secretary Rice is complaining about them, good for her.
-Eric