US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's criticism of Israel's settlement activities during her meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon on Friday did not come as a surprise.

Increasingly, the American administration has become more vocal and more public in its expression of concern over Israel's intensification and escalation of its settlement activities on Palestinian land.

Despite repeated American exhortations and Israeli verbal promises to put an end to such "unilateral measures" that seek to preempt and prejudge issues on the agenda of permanent status negotiations, Israel has persisted in flouting US warnings and in deliberately expanding its land confiscation as well as its settlement building activities.

Such a blatant provocation and disdain of American efforts at maintaining a minimal semblance of compliance from Israel have generated a certain degree of palpable tension in the otherwise accommodating and cordial American-Israeli relations.

Prior to the Albright criticism, last month US special envoy Dennis Ross had come up with the most explicit criticism to date, stating that settlement activities were "very destructive to the pursuit of peace."

This was followed by Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk's statements accusing Israel of non-compliance while publicly applauding the Palestinian side for having discharged its obligations in accordance with the signed agreements.

All the while, State Department spokesperson, James Rubin, was engaged in voicing the Administration's exasperation with the Israeli government's deliberate disregard of US demands. The underlying implications were that such Israeli insubordination and arrogance may prove to be extremely prejudicial to US credibility and standing in the peace process as well as in the region.

On March 16, Rubin stated that the US has been "troubled by the expansion of existing settlements well beyond their periphery" and that settlement activity "jeopardizes" the chances for peace.

Following the uneasy Albright-Sharon meeting, Rubin stated that they were "concerned about an accelerated pattern of Israeli actions on the ground since Wye, which have become clearer in recent months. These actions involve both construction of new settlements as well as an expansion of settlements well beyond their existing perimeters, in many cases involving expansions to distant hilltops."

Israel's response has been in the predictable intensification of its colonial settlements, including the "by-pass roads" which fragment Palestinian land, marginalize Palestinian infrastructure and towns, while connecting these settlements to Israel and enhancing Israel's illegal extraterritorial expansion into Palestine.

While a clear apartheid reality is being superimposed on Palestinian land, the Israeli government is rapidly eradicating the Palestinian-Israeli divide and destroying the chances of the two-state solution. Predictably, this would condemn both peoples to a situation of tension and conflict, in the short run. In the long run, it would put an end to Zionism as an ideology bent on creating an exclusively (or a predominantly) Jewish State.

Israeli public "justifications" of settlements are at best laughable. At worst they are cynical manipulations and distortions that betray a total contempt for the intelligence of their audience.

Sharon's notorious response was that settlements "contribute to peace" because they "contribute to security," hence to Israel's "readiness to go forward" with the peace process.

No less preposterous are the hackneyed banalities regularly spouted forth by Netanyahu's communications director David Bar-Illan. The "natural expansion" argument has been exposed by the fact that Israeli settlements are only partially inhabited, despite the fact that their population growth rate is three times that of Israel due to deliberate demographic transfer of settlers. The real issue, however, remains in the illegality of the construction of these settlements on other people's lands.

The fact that no correlation (hence no means of comparison) exists between the historical and rightful owners of the land as opposed to artificially and illegally imposed settlements does not occur to Bar-Illan. Should Palestinians occupy another people's country and claim the right to expansion, then the comparison becomes valid.

Although such logical and factual fallacies abound in the glib rhetoric of Israel's official spin machine, one other instance is worth mentioning in this context. In response to the Ross statement on the destructive nature of settlements, Bar-Illan (presumably with a straight face) declares that "any prior criticisms of the activities in these communities [settlements] only serves to prejudice the outcome of the final-status talks."

However meant, such statements cannot be taken lightly. They betray an attitude of extreme irresponsibility and disregard, not only vis-à-vis US or any other criticisms of Israeli violations, but also in relation to Israel's commitments to peace. Such flippancy is, by no stretch of the imagination, cute!

The figures alone are enough to point out the sinister implications of Israel's settlement policies. The total settler population on Palestinian land occupied in 1967 has reached 349,327 distributed among a total of 195 settlements. Of these settlers, 163,161 reside in West Bank settlements while 180,000 settlers are concentrated in the East Jerusalem area. Gaza (from which the Israelis were supposed to withdraw) has 6,166 settlers.

Since the signing of the Declaration of Principles in Washington on September 13, 1993, Israel has confiscated over 140,000 dunoms of Palestinian (mostly privately owned) land. On average, 8,630 dunoms are confiscated each month. The Netanyahu government's record, in less than three years, has been astounding. It added 20,000 settler housing units, while inaugurating six new industrial parks, 20 new "neighborhoods" and over 100 additional "footholds," and transformed five paramilitary settlements into permanent civilian settlements. Institutional "thickening" of settlements, the rapid proliferation of "by-pass roads," and the allocation of enormous amounts to subsidize settlement activities have been landmarks of the Netanyahu government's contributions to peace.

Israel signed the Wye Memorandum on October 23, 1998. On November 19, it announced its putting into effect the plans to confiscate 10% of Palestinian land in the West Bank for settlement activities. By the end of March 1999, it had confiscated 27,385 dunoms of mainly agricultural, privately owned land.

The "land-for-peace" equation cannot survive such land theft. Nor can any peace process accommodate such grave violations and the creation of tangible areas of injustice and friction.

In launching the peace process, the Bush administration described it as the most effective instrument to halt Israeli settlement activities. Unfortunately, the process failed to put an end to Israeli intransigence and expansion.

The linkage of the US$ 10 b loan guarantees to cessation of settlement expansion in 1992 was the sole concrete American measure taken in that area.

Despite Secretary Albright's promises to President Arafat, and notwithstanding critical US official statements, Israel persists in its destructive and belligerent attitude and "unilateral" measures.

The ultimate question (and test) remains in whether the US has the political will and the genuine commitment to peace to translate its statements into action.

Time is running out, as is our land. The peace process (if it exists at all) cannot endure such blatant Israeli violations and flagrant disregard of legal imperatives and responsibilities any longer. Nor can Palestinian (and Arab) confidence in the role of the US and the future of peace.