US State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher was busy again this Monday explaining the less sensational White House “news” that the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005 has become “increasingly unlikely.”

The revelation is hardly a surprise to anyone who has been following the developments of the past year. In fact, the only thing likely to be “achieved” on schedule is the completion of the separation wall by 2005.

Mr. Boucher was quick to hold the PNA responsible for the inevitable “delay” and lack of progress with the US backed road map which, according to his administration, is due to continued violence, the PNA’s alleged “failure” to stop attacks against Israelis and difficulties in restarting the stalled negotiations.

Lack of serious US engagement in support of the road map, conflicting Presidential statements such as Bush’s Letter of Assurances to Israel as well as Israel’s apathy towards the Quartet, as demonstrated last week when Israeli officials declined to meet with its delegation, found no mention.

President Bush’s contradictory pledge in support of his vision of a Palestinian state by 2005 - as recently re-iterated by US Secretary of State Colin Powell during his meeting with Palestinian PM Ahmad Qurei at the World Economic Forum in May - does not seem to bother the US administration much, nor does it follow the political consistency the administration took up with regards to Israel’s separation wall.

In the wake of the ICJ’s ruling, White House spokesman Scott McClellan denounced the decision saying that the “dispute” should be resolved politically, adding that “we’ve always said that it [ICJ] is not the appropriate forum for what is a political issue.”

Mr. McClellan is partially right about the separation wall being a political issue. It is so for Israel. Few Palestinians would object to the issue being solved politically, if only it would be. But both Israel’s and the US’ track record in that respect have been all but re-assuring. Israeli unilateralism and America's blank endorsement have predominantly characterized the prevalent political dynamics and have largely led to the current catastrophe.

The separation wall, which is consistent with a systematic Israeli policy of de-facto land annexation and unilateral pre-determination of a future Palestinian entity, would not have been the issue it is today had Israel complied with the settlement freeze required by the OSLO accords and subsequently by the road map. In fact, Israel continued to establish and develop its illegal settlements at an accelerated rate, deliberately striving to reduce the contiguity of any future Palestinian entity, if not its viability altogether.

US “guardianship” of both the Oslo Accords and the road map processes did not prevent Israel from illegally creating new “facts” on the ground, and while the US has occasionally called upon Israel to end its settlement activity, no action has been taken by this or the previous Clinton administration to pressure Israel to comply, effectively approving and endorsing it.

What the US administration yet expects or “envisions” to be achieved through political resolution is difficult to fathom, unless, of course, it is the sustenance of a situation that enables Israel to complete the separation wall without much disturbance and eventually present Palestinians with a “fait accompli”.

The same “fait accompli” the ICJ ruling recognized when it said that “[c]onstruction of the wall and its associated régime create a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent …. tantamount to de facto annexation”.

The US, now “concerned” that the ruling may affect the road map, has made it clear that it will veto any motion brought to the UN Security Council based on the ruling.
However, the Bush administration, in an attempt to handle this issue more pragmatically and possibly to avoid the embarrassment of using its veto power to block an ICJ based motion, which would be a first for the US, sent senior White House officials to meet with Palestinian PM Ahmad Qurei to discuss the issue or more precisely to dissuade the Palestinians from advancing the issue to the Security Council.

The ICJ ruling, which has been forwarded to the General Assembly earlier this week, will be discussed in a special session on Friday and is expected to be followed by a resolution calling for compliance by Israel with advisory opinion.
Israel’s defiant stance almost guarantees its non-compliance and the PNA and Arab countries are expected to eventually advance the issue to the Security Council.

How and when the Security Council will handle this issue is yet to be seen. That the US is adamant about providing Israel with the “automatic protection – many times illegal protection” as Palestinian UN Representative Al-Kidwa has called it, and thereby becoming complicit in a clear violation of international law has become quite obvious.

It is becoming equally obvious that the creation of a Palestinian state will not be achieved by 2005, or any year for that matter, until Israel’s “strategic” and “security” objectives have been secured.