This month the US experienced a-new the arrogance and prevarication of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government at its very best when intentions to continue illegal settlement expansion were announced on the very day US Vice President Joe Biden arrived to talk peace. The insult, which resulted in the Palestinians pulling out of proximity talks, was not taken lightly by the US and has effectively dented the relationship between the two.

The resulting rift has sparked reactions in Israel verging on hysteria; from paranoid claims of a frenzied anti-Israel climate engulfing the world, to those of efforts by Obama to remove Netanyahu from office. In the US, the developments were met with mixed reactions including criticism of Obama. Israel's problems were further exacerbated when the UK decided to expel one of its diplomats for Mossad's role in the forgery and abuse of British passports. And in the occupied territories, there has been increasing tension and violent outbreaks as a result of Israel's efforts to step up the Judaisation of Jerusalem as well as attacks on sacred Muslim and Christian religious places.

US - Israeli Rift of Historic Proportions

At the beginning of the month, US vice-president Joe Biden arrived in Israel for a US diplomatic initiative toward proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians and in an effort to gain Israeli support for the US policy of sanctions against Iran, as opposed to Israel's drive toward military action. Proximity talks are a partial climb down for Abbas who, for the past year, has insisted on full settlement freeze as a pre-condition to the resumption of negotiations. Nevertheless, construction continues despite Netanyahu's agreement to a temporary halt to construction under US pressure, which expires in a few months.

Prior to Biden's arrival, Israel's Ministry of defence approved the construction of 112 new flats in Beitar Illit, an extremist settlement near Bethlehem citing unspecified security reasons. A day later, and just hours after Biden had pledged full support to Israel & its security, the interior ministry announced approval of plans to build a further 1,600 new settlement units in the illegal settlement of Ramat Shlomo in occupied East Jerusalem casting a dark, insulting cloud over Biden's visit. In an unusually strong statement, the US explicitly condemned the decision and said that it "undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions I've had in Israel." Many commentators see Israel's actions as calculated procrastination aimed at strengthening its control on the ground and preventing the possibility of establishing an independent, viable Palestinian state; it is an extension of Netanyahu's deliberate efforts to frustrate Obama's pledge to mediate peace.

Netanyahu insisted that the timing of the announcement was coincidental but initially did not repudiate it, and said that it was not meant to offend Biden. He also claimed that settlements in no way affected Palestinians. As to be expected, the Palestinians pulled out of talks in protest and have refused to take part unless the US forces Israel to cancel the plans. This brutally contemptuous Israeli rebuff to US peacemaking has caused considerable political fallout and Obama is said to "incandescent with anger." Following Netanyahu's efforts to play down the incident, one of Obama's aides branded the move an "affront", an "insult" and "very destructive." Israel's ambassador to the US, Michael Oren said the dispute had reached historic proportions not seen for 35 years.

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made it clear she expected Israelis to concede to the US and to make concessions to restart the peace process with the Arabs. There has been a steady build up of pressure and the US is intent on pushing Israel into substantive peace talks as well as being determined to avoid the embarrassment of its previous encounter with Netanyahu. They are demanding a cancellation on the settlements, a good will gesture toward the Palestinians and withdrawal from certain territory. Netanyahu finally agreed to most of Clinton's demands ahead of a US visit.
 
The archbishop of Canterbury, King Abdullah of Jordan and the Quartet on the Middle East all strongly condemned Israel's provocative measures. The Quartet called on it to pull out from Palestinian territories within the next 24 months.

Re-Evaluation of US-Israel Relationship

The rift in US-Israel relations is reflective of a wider debate and a re-assessment of the US policy toward Israel currently taking place among journalist, Middle East analysts, political think tanks and policy makers as well as senior US military personnel.

The top US military commander, General David Petraeus, earlier this month briefed the Senate armed services committee that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one of the major causes of the instability in the Middle East and Asia and that it "foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel". He asserted that the lack of progress in peace negotiations "presented distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests."

Many questions are being raised about the benefits to the US of its 'special' relationship with Israel. MEMO has produced a report into this development entitled 'Isn't it time for America to re-evaluate its 'special' relationship with Israel'.

AIPAC

In a speech at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]; the biggest pro-Israeli lobbying group in American, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, reaffirmed her own and the Obama administration's commitment to Israel and its security. However, in direct reference to its recent spat with Israel over settlements, she told the conference "New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit. And it undermines America's unique ability to play a role   an essential role, I might add   in the peace process."

Clinton received a cool reception from a crowd that would previously have given her a standing ovation. Nevertheless, she publicly "reframed the relationship between the two countries by breaking from the virtually unquestioning support of previous administrations to say that the present one will "say so unequivocally" when it doesn't agree with Israeli government policy." Netanyahu, who also spoke at the conference, remained defiant.

Netanyahu's Meeting with Obama

Netanyahu's meeting with Obama toward the end of the month was an unusually low profiled affair. He met with Obama for 90 minutes followed by an unusual 80 minute discussion with his own staff, before requesting to meet with Obama once again. No information was released about what was discussed nor was there the customary public handshake and photo opportunity and the pair were not seen together at all. Every indication was of a cool reception by the White House following the rift that has developed between the countries over the last month; however, one of Netanyahu's spokesmen reported that "the atmosphere was good".

The Importance of the EU in the Middle East

The EU has reaffirmed its position as a player in the Middle East peace process. Earlier this month, Baroness Catherine Ashton, the EU's new Foreign Policy Chief, visited the besieged Gaza Strip together with the UN Chief, Ban Ki Moon, in an effort to analyse the situation of the people following the devastation of the war.

Prior to her visit, the European Parliament passed a resolution urging its 27 member states to 'demand the implementation of the Goldstone Report's recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law'. The resolution, passed on 10th March, called for the new EU foreign policy chief to fully investigate allegations that war crimes had been committed in the Gaza during Israeli's inhumane incursion, which saw more that 1400 Palestinians killed.

The Dubai Murder, Mossad & the UK Passports Scandal

Following the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh by Israeli Mossad agents in Dubai at the beginning of the year and the subsequent scandal surrounding its forgery and misuse of British passports, Britain has made the unavoidable decision to expel an Israeli diplomat and member of Mossad. At the height of the scandal last month, the Israeli Ambassador was summoned to the FO but refused to provide any additional information; Israel has chosen to neither deny nor affirm involvement. The announcement of the expulsion was made just hours before Netanyahu was due to meet with President Obama.

The official Israeli response has been an expression of regret, however several MP's have voiced angry criticism and threatened the expulsion of a senior British diplomat such as the military attaché. Aryeh Eldad is quoted as having said: "I think [the] British are behaving hypocritically and I don't want to offend dogs on this issue, since some dogs are utterly loyal, who are they to judge us on the war on terror?"

Following an inquiry by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca), Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, announced that there was 'compelling' evidence against Mossad and that forgeries either took place in Israel or other countries. He expressed outrage and described Israeli use of fake British passports as 'intolerable' and a 'profound disregard' for UK sovereignty. He also stated that despite Britain's relationship with Israel, it could not be expected to ignore such blatant abuse. Miliband has written to Israeli authorities seeking assurances that this will not happen again and has said that the FO's travel advice will have to be changed to reflect the risk of British travelers' documents being cloned in Israel.

Miliband also stressed "in the strongest possible terms" that Britain had no prior knowledge or involvement in Mabhouh's murder. While the expulsion of the Mossad agent was welcomed by many, the British government is yet to address the grave issue of Mabhouh's murder itself and many others believe its actions do not go far enough, as was expressed in a MEMO commentary earlier in the month.

Changing British Public Opinion on the Middle East

Several letters in The Guardian by various members of the public, show that popular opinion on the situation in the Middle East is shifting away from the narrow narrative that prevailed in the mainstream media prior to the Gaza war. In addition, Israel's current insistence on arrogantly flaunting international law before the eyes of the world by expanding its colonies on Palestinian land, destroying prospects for peace and creating facts on the ground that render a two-state solution impracticable, have cemented public opinion. There have been frustrated calls to confront the realities of settlement expansion, including from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and for the Quartet and all those involved in the peace process to make good on their promise of action against Israel in the only way that will be effective; through economic sanctions and an arms ban.

This has expectedly led to claims from certain quarters of bias against Israel in the UK media. One journalist quotes a senior British official as saying; "Today, it is impossible to sell the Israeli case in Britain."

Violence in Gaza

In a continuation of a spate of violence across the region, the Israeli army shot dead two 17 year old Palestinian boys as they ploughed a field of olive trees. The military claimed the boys had tried to stab a soldier. However, the deaths bring the number of those killed within the region this month alone, to 5 and add to a rapidly deteriorating situation that has seen lethal clashes in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Some Israeli commentators attribute the violence to a breakdown in relations between Israel and the US. One editorial stated "We are concerned that disproportionate ongoing criticism... can only further embolden intransigence and violence." To the contrary, it is Israel that is trying to provoke a Palestinian reaction and instigate violence in an effort to divert international attention away from their many recent humiliations. This month has been an unmitigated public relations disaster for Israel and rebuke it received in the media as well as in general British public opinion will be difficult to overcome if at all.

The Judaisation of Jerusalem

The policy of the 'Judaization' East Jerusalem continued to be source of great contention and anger for the Palestinians this month. Despite the fact that the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory began early last century, the current policy of erasing the historic existence of Palestinians within the region has added significance to what is at stake.

Jerusalem, sacred to the three Abrahamic faiths, is home to Islamic and Christian sites of key religious import and which are constantly under threat from on-going Israeli state-funded and private excavation projects and the construction of illegal settlements in Palestinian East Jerusalem. The re-opening of a Jewish synagogue on the doorstep of Al-Aqsa mosque, the third most sacred site in Islam, and the subsequent threat of building a third synagogue in Al-Haram Ash-Sharif (Temple Mount) has inflamed tensions. This was further exacerbated with the recent advertising campaign by right-wing Zionists, in which 200 buses carried posters picturing the Third Temple sitting atop the mount alone - with no Muslim buildings in sight - along with the words, 'May the Bais Hamikdosh [Holy Temple] be rebuilt speedily and within our days'. The organisers have gone for further provocation by ensuring that the majority of the buses with their adverts run through predominately Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem.

As the Jewish festival of Passover coincides with Easter, in the past Palestinian Christians wanting to travel to Jerusalem for the religious holiday had severe restrictions imposed on them, preventing thousands from commemorating the occasion. This year, Christian leaders all over Occupied Palestine, together with various Christian organisations, called for demonstrations against these discriminatory policies which sought to exclude certain faiths from the Holy Land. Perhaps in response to these threats, the Israeli authorities loosened its restrictions granting 10,000 permits to Christians in the Occupied West Bank and 500 to those in the besieged Gaza Strip.

The US Perspective

There is a commonly-held belief that the American people are deprived of a robust, independent media, in part because of the size of the country and the consequent lack of a genuine "national" newspaper or TV news channel. Two "Times" newspapers, in New York and Los Angeles give a flavour of the media fare put before Americans. In March, not surprisingly, coverage of the Middle East focused on the deterioration of the relationship between the US and Israel.

An "Op-Ed" piece in the LA Times in mid-March summed up the conundrum that is the US position on Israel, and explains in its own small way why Israel will probably continue to get its own way and US frustration at its closest ally's actions will be expressed in rebukes of varying degrees of mildness; from the mild to the very mild to the insignificant. The LA Times Op-Ed by Max Boot was headed, "No way to treat a friend". It was not, as similar headlines in the British media were, a direct reference to Israel's "insult" to Vice-President Joe Biden when the Jewish state announced an expansion of settlements in occupied Jerusalem during the very pro-Israel politician's visit. On the contrary, the LA Times headline was a complaint about the US response to that insult: "Why is the Obama administration so hard on Israel -- the most liberal and pro-American country in the Middle East -- when it's so soft on its despotic neighbours?" asked Mr. Boot somewhat indignantly.

Three paragraphs into his piece, Max Boot mentioned "the Axis of Evil", his label for Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, whose leaders had a meeting in Damascus and, despite calling for "a Middle East 'without Zionists and without colonialists'", escaped without the sort of response that Israel received for its "affront" and "insult". Mr. Boot, obviously, didn't tell his readers that there are 3 billion reasons every year why the United States has every right to expect a little more from its surrogate state in the Middle East. $3 billion; that's the amount of aid that Israel gets from the hard-earned tax dollars of US citizens annually, more than the rest of the world put together if Egypt and Jordan are removed from the calculation. Perhaps Mr. Boot would like to consider enlightening the good people of Los Angeles as to why a state with a booming economy, Israel, should get so much from a state in a recession, the USA. And why it should get so much with no apparent strings attached, not even to accept slaps on the wrist in good grace.

On the East Coast of America, the New York Times has offered a mixed bag of opinions and articles, which is what a good newspaper ought to do. An Editorial on the 26 March pointed out that the settlement issue is important if for no other reason than that "Palestinians are justifiably worried that these projects nibble away at the land available for their future state". It is the NYT's "hope" that "Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith." Jerusalem's future, the Editorial adds, must be decided in negotiations. In other words, this drive by the Israelis to create "facts on the ground" must be halted if a just peace is to be possible. The NYT, however, is "sceptical" that Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is "committed to and capable of peacemaking".

Although "many Israelis find Mr. Obama's willingness to challenge Israel unsettling", the NYT finds it "refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen". This in itself is refreshing, especially in a major newspaper such as the New York Times, despite the almost de rigueur proviso that President Obama "must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully" as he does the Israelis. This assumes - erroneously MEMO believes -that the two sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict are equal in every way, especially in political matters and influence.

That gripe aside, the NYT has also offered us Pulitzer Prize-winning Maureen Dowd calling Netanyahu "supremely aggravating", an opinion shared by many, one suspects. This Op-Ed Columnist said in her March 16 that "there is no love lost between the Israeli prime minister and Obama's aides, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod - ever since Bibi obnoxiously labelled them 'self-hating Jews' last summer". Is this a chink of light in the struggle against accusations of anti-Semitism thrown at Gentile critics of Israeli policies, and "self-hating Jews" used for those who share the ethnicity but not the politics of most Israelis? Ms. Dowd quotes Obama in a way that illustrates what real friendship is all about, something that Max Boot in California hasn't quite grasped: "Being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth," said the President to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg who, according to Dowd, "points out that 'what most right-wing Israelis don't understand is that even American Jews - especially the nearly 80 percent who voted for Obama - disaggregate what is in the best interest of Israel from what is in the best interest of the settlers'". Obama knows that Jews no longer speak with one voice, adds Maureen Dowd, which "gives him enough room to keep the heat on Netanyahu".

The NYT also has another Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in Thomas L. Friedman, and he always makes for interesting reading. On March 16 he sang the praises of the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, who he hopes will succeed where "Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah" fail, which will "be good for Israel, America and the moderate Arabs". No mention of ordinary Palestinians, note, moderate or otherwise. It is surprising that someone of Thomas Friedman's calibre still uses such subjective terms like "moderate", which really mean very little unless there is a clearly defined and accepted mean against which they can be measured.

Nevertheless, when he links Mr. Fayyad's "calls... for a non-violent struggle, for building non-corrupt transparent institutions and effective police and paramilitary units, which even the Israeli Army says are doing a good job" he gives the game away. Accusations that the PA's "police and paramilitary units" serve Israel's interests much more than those of the people they are meant to protect - Palestinians across the occupied West Bank; occupied by the so-appreciative Israeli Army, remember - continue to dog the Palestinian Authority. As do claims that the institutions being built by Salam Fayyad are anything but "non-corrupt".

Despite what is obvious to everyone with eyes to see, this corrupt administration in the West Bank is in Thomas Friedman's view, the horse to back.