It is not yet clear whether an attack on a US convoy marks a new stage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, if so, the causes are political as much as ideological, writes Graham Usher in Jerusalem The ambush on a US "diplomatic convoy" in Gaza on Wednesday threatens to turn another page in the long war known as Israel-Palestine. The roadside bomb wrecked one car and killed three US officials while traveling into Gaza under a Palestinian Authority police escort just south of the Strip's main Eretz crossing into Israel. Among the dead were junior diplomats and CIA agents, said Israeli and Palestinian media sources. Yasser Arafat denounced the attack as a "crime", aware that it could harden even further American attitudes toward his leadership and/or precipitate the US-administration's already "disengaged" posture toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict into an all-out flight. Palestinian Prime Minister, Ahmed Qurei (better known as Abu Ala) vowed to open an investigation into those responsible for the ambush. He too needs all the American help he can get. Israel said it underscored its demand that the PA "dismantle the terrorist infrastructure" in the PA areas. At Al-Ahram Weekly press time, no Palestinian militia had claimed the ambush. Nor is it yet certain whether America as a state was the intended target. The area where the ambush happened has seen several roadside bombs and armed attacks on Israeli army and settler convoys. What is clear is that the explosive charge was huge and was probably detonated by remote control. Nor is it any secret that US diplomats and CIA men routinely use the road to travel in and out of Gaza. If the ambush was intended, it would mark the first time in three years of fighting that the Palestinian militias have widened their armed Intifada against Israeli soldiers, settlers and civilians to include US officials. Most PA officials will deplore the development, but few would be genuinely surprised by it, given the strength of anti-American feeling now palpable among Palestinians It has political grounds. On Tuesday the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's recent decisions to expand settlements and extend its security barrier deep into the heart of the West Bank. This was at one with the US decision last month to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's "in principle" decision to remove Yasser Arafat as the elected leader of the nation it is supposed to be negotiating with over independence. On each occasion Negroponte justified the veto because neither resolution explicitly denounced the "terrorism" of groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades. On each occasion the US was effectively joined in its rejection by the abstention of Britain and Germany, signaling that they too view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as less a national liberation struggle against military occupation than another front in the "war against terrorism". But Palestinians' real anger was reserved for the US utterly partisan response to the Israeli army's recent, mammoth invasion of Rafah's Yebna refugee camp. Launched on 10 October, this was ostensibly to unearth tunnels used to smuggle arms across the Egyptian border into Gaza. Three tunnels, apparently, were unearthed, but no arms were found. Instead the army blitzed the camp with helicopter and tank fire, leaving eight Palestinians dead (including two children) and 70 wounded. According to the UN it also destroyed or severely damaged 114 Palestinian shelters, rendering 1300 refugees homeless for the second or third times in their lives. Following the army's partial withdrawal from Rafah on Monday Rafah Governor Majid Al-Agha likened the camp to a "disaster area". UN officials said it resembled an earthquake, aggravated by an army siege that isolated Rafah from Palestinian hospitals in the north of Gaza. Amnesty International said Israel's "wanton and deliberate destruction" of Palestinian civilian property could only be construed as a "war crime" under international humanitarian law. A US State Department spokesman said on Tuesday that while Israel should be "aware of the consequences of its actions", the invasion and house demolitions in Rafah could be understood as part of "Israel's need to defend itself". Finally there is the US disengagement from any active role in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, save for its ritual mantra that the PA must "consolidate" its security forces under an "empowered" prime minister so that they can arrest, disarm and dismantle the Palestinian militias. It has been made clear to all in the PA that without this there will be no real pressure on Israel to end its military policies of incursions, house demolitions and "internal expulsion", let alone implement what was once known as the "roadmap toward peace". Three weeks ago Hamas' spiritual leader said American policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine meant that the Bush administration had "declared war on Islam". If the ambush on the US convoy were deliberate, it would appear that some Palestinians have decided to take that war to America in Palestine. But for most Palestinians the spur would have been political, not ideological.
