Israel's outrageous behaviour is ruffling feathers in Washington, and not before time Riding roughshod over the latest American criticisms of his government, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has vowed to continue to expand Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem as well as the rest of the West Bank regardless of American and international objections, writes Khaled Amayreh in Ramallah. Buoyed by his hawkish government, widely considered the most extremist in Israel's history, Netanyahu was quoted as saying that "building in Jerusalem and all other places will continue in the same way that has been accepted for the last 42 years." Other Israeli officials vowed to defy American pressure, alluding to "Jewish power" in the United States. The latest crisis between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government began last week when Israel announced plans to build thousands of additional settler units in East Jerusalem that Israel occupied in 1967. The announcement came during a high-level visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden, considered one of Israel's most loyal supporters in the American political arena. Biden, whose visit to Israel aimed to reaffirm American commitment to its security, which he did using characteristically lavish phraseology, was clearly embarrassed by the Israeli announcement, especially its timing, believed to have been made deliberately to coincide with US efforts to restart stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). While denying that he sought to embarrass Biden, Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders nonetheless spoke of only a "slight mistake in the timing of the announcement", and insisted that in any case the Obama administration had to be aware of "Israel's rights to build homes in Israel's united and undivided capital". The brazen Israeli defiance, mixed with a whiff of contempt for the Obama administration, eventually touched a raw nerve in Washington. On Friday night, 12 March, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu, telling him that the latest Israeli moves were unacceptable to the government of the United States. The 43- minute conversation, described by the Israeli press as "harsh" and mostly one-sided (meaning that Clinton did most of the talking and Netanyahu most of the listening), reportedly surprised the Israeli premier, not so much for its unusual tone but rather for the list of demands made by Clinton on the Israeli government. According to the Hebrew newspaper Maariv, these demands included cancelling the decision to build 1,600 settler units at the Ramat Shlomo settlement, making a "gesture of substance" towards PA President Mahmoud Abbas sooner rather than later, which could be in the form of releasing an undisclosed number of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli detention camps and immediately resuming peace talks with the Palestinians as well as expressing willingness to discuss all final status issues, including Jerusalem. According to the Israeli newspaper, Clinton told Netanyahu that his government's actions were "deeply negative" for US-Israeli relations. She reportedly added that Israeli acceptance of American demands would show whether the Israeli government was serious about seeking peace with the Palestinians or not. The paper also termed the conversation as the "bill Israel must pay to compensate for embarrassing Vice- President Biden". Other American officials called the Israeli decision to expand Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank "an insult to the United States". "This was an affront; it was an insult, but most importantly it undermined the very fragile effort to bring peace to the region," said David Axelord, one of President Obama's closest aides. "We have just started proximity talks that are shuttle diplomacy, between the Palestinians and Israelis, and for this announcement to come at that time was very destructive." Despite the ostensible severity of the "crisis" between Tel Aviv and Washington, it is unlikely that the US will exert truly meaningful pressure on Israel to make the latter depart from its rejectionist attitudes with regards to reaching an equitable peace settlement with the Palestinians, especially one involving Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in 1967. Strong pressure on Israel by Washington would immediately activate the powerful Zionist lobby in the United States, including millions of evangelical Christian Zionists who view the creation of Israel in Palestine in 1948 as a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy and a precedent to the second advent of Christ. In fact, there are several indications suggesting that unusually blunt American reactions to an Israeli announcement of settlement expansion may be more a message of reassurance to frustrated Arab capitals, especially Ramallah, and less an outburst of exasperation triggered by Israeli settlement-related provocations. For example, both Israeli and American officials have accentuated "the timing" rather than "substance" of the announcement to build hundreds of fresh settler units in East Jerusalem. Nearly all Israeli officials have admitted that the "timing" of the announcement was "a mistake", whereas none criticised or questioned the actual plan of expanding settlements which amounts to killing the two-state solution, if not all the peace prospects for the region. It is unlikely that the current level of American pressure on the Israeli government will force Israel to bring about any change of substance to the current Israeli settlement policy. Most observers in occupied Palestine agree that the present Israeli leadership would rather dissolve the government and call for new elections than cave in to American pressure over the settlement issue. The Netanyahu government is based on ideologically homogenous coalition of extreme rightwing parties and factions that vehemently reject any withdrawal from the occupied territories or dismantling of Jewish settlements. Meanwhile, US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell reportedly has delayed a trip to the region in a clear sign of the Obama administration's growing anger at Israel's refusal to halt settlement expansion in occupied East Jerusalem. In addition to the crisis with Washington, Mitchell is facing two ominous developments on the Palestinian side. First, there is what appears to be an incipient Intifada raging in the occupied territories, especially in Jerusalem and its vicinity. Unusually violent clashes between stone- hurling Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces have been taking place for days. The outbreak of protests came as a reaction to provocative Israeli measures against Al-Aqsa Mosque, including the inauguration on Monday, 15 March, of a huge synagogue one block from the Dome of the Rock, also known as the Mosque of Omar. This tension is likely to spread to other parts of the West Bank and also across the Green Line, into Israel proper, which would overshadow any American effort to resume peace talks. Second, the PA leadership, beleaguered and frustrated by Israeli insolence and intransigence, has said it won't engage in indirect peace talks with Israel unless the latter reconsiders its recent decision to build 1,600 fresh settler units in occupied East Jerusalem. Whether the PA ultimately backs down on this stance or not, what is clear is that stumbling American efforts to revive peace talks are being thwarted by the looming chances of a new wave of popular Palestinian struggle that may depart from all traditional equations that have governed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to date.
