U.S. military will conduct an anti-submarine warfare exercise with South Korea early next month

The U.S. military will conduct an anti-submarine warfare exercise with South Korea early next month, sending a message to the North that Washington is committed to defending its ally, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the joint exercise, which is likely to annoy regional power China, would be conducted off the western coast of the Korean Peninsula and was aimed at defending against “sub-surface” attacks, particularly following the sinking of one of the south’s warships in March.

“This exercise certainly sends a clear message to North Korea that the U.S. is committed to the defense of the Republic of Korea,” Whitman told reporters. “Our commitment is unequivocal.”Asked about China’s likely negative reaction, Whitman said Beijing had no reason to view the joint series of exercises as a threat to its security.

“These exercises are intended to deter North Korea from future destabilizing attacks such as that which occurred with Cheonan,” he said, referring to the sinking of the South Korean warship earlier this year, which was blamed on Pyongyang.The North has denied involvement in the sinking of the Cheonan, which killed 46 sailors, and sees the latest string of joint exercises as a provocation by its neighbor and Washington.After Seoul competed drills near a disputed maritime border off the west coast this month, the North retaliated by firing a barrage of artillery shells in the same area.

SUCCESSION JITTERS

Relations across the divided peninsula have become more fraught following the attack on the Cheonan and there also is growing concern in Washington over the North’s increasingly unpredictable behavior.U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week that recent provocations by the North should be seen in the context of tensions surrounding the succession of leader Kim Jong-il, who is expected to hand over power to his youngest son.

Gates said Kim’s youngest son was probably seeking to “earn his stripes” with the North Korean military and he was concerned that there were more attacks ahead.The latest military exercise, planned for early September, followed a visit by Gates and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Seoul last month, Whitman said.The exercise will focus on anti-submarine warfare tactics, techniques and procedures and was designed specifically to improve the readiness and proficiency of U.S. and South Korean forces against potential sub-surface attacks, he said.Whitman said the exercise was still in the planning stages and declined to provide details on which U.S. ships might be involved or the scope or length of the exercise.As the North’s only major ally, China has called the U.S. drills a threat to both its security and regional stability.After a joint U.S.-South Korea naval drill in the Sea of Japan last month, China conducted its own heavily publicized military exercises.(Reuters)

Obama administration poised to challenge Arizona immigration law

The White House is expected to file a lawsuit next week. Arizona has raised more than $120,000 in private donations to defend the legislation.Reporting from Washington  A White House showdown with the state of Arizona over its tough new immigration law is likely to unfold next week, when the Obama administration is expected to file a lawsuit aimed at blocking the state’s bid to curb illegal immigration on its own, according to people familiar with the administration’s plans.

Arizona officials are girding for the legal challenge. The state has raised $123,000 in private donations to defend the law, according to Gov. Jan Brewer’s office. Money has come in from all 50 states, in donations as little as $1.Obama administration officials declined to reveal the basis for the suit. But legal experts say the challenge is likely to include the argument that in passing the law, Arizona violated the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.To date, the state has been hit with five lawsuits. The law, SB 1070, was signed in April and is scheduled to go into effect July 29.

By confronting Arizona, the Obama administration would be making a political statement as much as a legal one. Obama has already criticized the Arizona law as “misdirected.” Criminal action against illegal immigrants is not, by itself, a satisfactory solution to the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system, the White House says.Obama has said that part of the remedy must include a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally. But with mid-term elections approaching, the president has not made the politically explosive issue a legislative priority for 2010.

Brewer and other Republican officials have recoiled at the prospect of a federal suit.”Perhaps the administration should focus on getting the assets they promised to the border region rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars on suing the state of Arizona,” said Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The Obama administration tipped its hand on its plans earlier this month when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an Ecuadoran television interview that a lawsuit was coming. Outraged, Brewer said the administration should “inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”

The Arizona law empowers police, after making a lawful stop, to verify the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally.

Opponents warn that the law could be easily abused — enforced in a fashion that unfairly targets Latinos.Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and an attorney who is part of a group of civil rights organizations contesting the law, said: “A legal challenge by the Justice Department would help ensure that Arizona’s renegade state law, which will cause racial profiling and undermine effective law enforcement, does not actually go into effect.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton that the Obama administration will sue the state over its new immigration law

PHOENIX Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Thursday she’s angry over comments by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that the Obama administration will sue the state over its new immigration law.In a June 8 media interview in Ecuador that began circulating Thursday in the U.S., Clinton said President Barack Obama thinks the federal government should determine immigration policy and that the Justice Department “will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler on Thursday declined to say whether the department would sue and that “the department continues to review the law.”

The department has been looking at the law for weeks for possible civil rights violations, with an eye toward a possible court challenge.It’s unclear why Clinton made the comment since it’s not her area. She couldn’t be reached Thursday for comment.State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Obama and Clinton have both made it clear that the administration opposes the law.

“I will defer to the Justice Department on the legal steps that are available and where they stand on the review of the law,” Crowley said. “The secretary believes that comprehensive immigration reform is a better course of action.”Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement that “this is no way to treat the people of Arizona.”

“To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous,” she said. “If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor was “outraged” and that Clinton’s comments make it appear that the Justice Department has decided to file suit.

“But she’s confident that in the end, the state of Arizona, the citizens, will prevail,” he said.On April 23, Brewer signed what is considered the toughest legislation in the nation targeting illegal immigrants. It is set to go into effect July 29 pending multiple legal challenges and the Justice Department’s review.

The law requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state’s streets.The law’s stated intention is to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and discourage them from coming in the first place. It has outraged civil rights groups, drawn criticism from Obama and led to marches and protests organized by people on both sides of the issue.

The law’s backers say Congress isn’t doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it’s the state’s duty to address the issue. Critics say it will lead to racial profiling and discrimination against Hispanics, and damage ties between police and minority communities.Brewer met with Obama in the Oval Office about the law on June 3, telling him: “We want our border secured.” Obama reiterated his objections to the law. Neither side appeared to give ground although both talked about seeking a bipartisan solution.

Other Arizona politicians, political candidates and activist groups were quick to weigh in on Clinton’s remarks. U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain, called them appalling; attorney general candidates Tom Horne and Andrew Thomas also denounced them.Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, urged the administration to take swift action against the law.(AP)

Arizona to be Sued by US Government

Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 Text 2010 Update  Arizona to be Sued by US Government. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been quoted as saying that the Department of Justice could be planning to sue the state government over their controversial immigration law, citing that it is unconstitutional.Arizona’s law makes it a criminal offense to be present in the state without proper immigration or resident status.  It requires law enforcement to inquire about immigration status if probable cause to believe that someone is in the country illegally exists.

It also requires that everyone – citizens and immigrants alike, have proof of their status on their person at all times.  This can be accomplished with something as simple as a driver’s license.Many fear that the law will cause racial profiling at massive levels. Even the President has hinted that the law could cause issues for some immigrants.

Governor Jan Brewer plans on fighting hard against any lawsuit.  She found out about a potential lawsuit through a June 8 interview between Clinton and a TV station in Ecuador.  Brewer was outraged, and the AP reports that the governor said “If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.Whether or not a lawsuit will be successful is something that will likely take months – if not a year or more – to determine.  This fight would go all the way to the Supreme Court and set important precedent over what will happen with immigration law.  This is definitely an issue that will polarize natural born citizens and immigrants alike. (AP)

Arizona's referendum drives targeting new law dropped

PHOENIX The two proposed referendum drives challenging Arizona’s new sweeping law targeting illegal immigration are being abandoned, organizers said Monday. Andrew Chavez, a professional petition circulator involved in one of the efforts, said its backers pulled the plug after concluding they might not be able to time their petition filings in such a way as to put the law on hold pending a 2012 public vote.Jon Garrido, the chief organizer of the other drive, attributed its end to a belief that the law would have been subject to legal protections under Arizona’s Constitution if approved by Arizona voters.

The law takes effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by court injunctions requested under at least three of the four pending legal challenges already filed by an Hispanic clergy group, police officers and other individuals.Its provisions include requiring that police enforcing another law must question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

Critics have said the law will result in racial profiling of Hispanics. Supporters deny that and say the law will pressure illegal immigrants to leave the country on their own.

Chavez said his clients, whom he would not identify, launched the effort in the belief that they could put the law on hold until 2012 by not filing petition signatures until it was too late for state elections officials to place a referendum on the November ballot.

However, the backers decided over the weekend to end the referendum campaign when they concluded there still might be a November vote, not giving them enough time to be confident about being able to wage a successful campaign against the law, Chavez said.

The normal deadline for ballot questions is July 1, after which the printing of November ballots and other election preparations typically get under way. The Secretary of State’s Office previously acknowledged that a down-to-the-wire referendum filing by this year’s July 28 deadline might not give officials enough time to get it on the November ballot. However, the office also said it would depend on circumstances at the time.

Garrido, the chief organizer of the second referendum drive, said its backers abandoned it after getting legal advice that Arizona’s constitutional protections for voter-approved ballot measures would have applied to the law if approved by voters.Secretary of State’s spokesman Matt Benson said Monday the office also believes that the constitutional limitations on possible legislative action would have applied to the law if voters approved it.

The constitutional provisions bar the Legislature from repealing a voter-approved law and only allow legislative changes that further the intent of the original law. Also, any changes must be approved by three-quarters votes of both the House and Senate.

The four legal challenges filed so far in U.S. District Court in Phoenix have been randomly assigned to different judges. Several major civil-rights groups are expected to file another challenge as early as this week.No hearings have been set yet on the lawsuits, which likely will be consolidated into one case before a single judge. That judge would then set a schedule for consideration of the plaintiffs’ requests for injunctions and rulings to strike down the law.(AP)

Arizona's trailblazing immigration law if two lawmakers can get enough support to pass bills they say they intend to introduce next year

AUSTIN, Texas, April 28 Texas could follow Arizona’s trailblazing immigration law if two lawmakers can get enough support to pass bills they say they intend to introduce next year.Texas state Rep. Leo Berman says he is planning a package of bills next January that include one measure that would make it a crime to be an undocumented worker and another allowing law enforcement officials to ask people they believe may be in the country illegally about their status, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Wednesday.

“I think almost every state in the union will follow suit,” Berman said.Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, has said she also plans to introduce a similar bill.”The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established,” Riddle told Hearst Newspapers. “If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn’t have to take this action, and neither would Texas.”

Tyler’s KLTV-TV reported Berman also wants to require U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates to prove their citizenship to the Texas secretary of state before their names can be put on the ballot, a nod to the so-called birther movement.The station said opponents of the proposed legislation say it will get a different reception in Texas than in Arizona.(UPI)

Arizona immigrant advocates are preparing to move the fight to the courtroom

Arizona’s strict new immigration law escalates, immigrant advocates are preparing to move the fight to the courtroom, where their legal challenges have successfully sunk other high-profile laws against illegal migrants.The American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center are set to announce in Phoenix on Thursday plans to challenge the measure.

The law, which is set to take effect in mid-summer, makes it a state crime for illegal migrants to be in Arizona, requires police to check for evidence of legal status and bars people from hiring or soliciting work off the streets.

The key legal issue, according to lawyers on both sides, will be one that also was at the center of the court fight over Proposition 187 in California whether the state law interferes with the federal government’s duty to handle immigration.The announcement of legal action, one of several expected as attorneys across the country scrutinize the law for weaknesses, comes after days of frantic e-mails, conference calls and lengthy strategy sessions. Attorneys haven’t finalized when a court challenge would be filed, but said it would be before the law takes effect.

“The entire country has been galvanized,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “People within the legal community are trying to figure out what we can do…. We have seen an enormous amount of energy responding to this.”

Attorneys who successfully challenged laws against illegal immigrants in California, Texas and elsewhere argue that the Arizona law faces a similar fate because of the federal/state issue. Immigrant advocates also argue that the law could violate guarantees of equal protection if selectively enforced against certain ethnic groups.”The Arizona law is doomed to the dustbin of other unconstitutional efforts by local government to regulate immigration, which is a uniquely federal function,” said Peter Schey, a Los Angeles attorney who led both successful challenges to the 1975 Texas law denying illegal migrant children a free public education and the 1994 California initiative that would have barred public services to illegal migrants. Schey said he also planned to file a separate lawsuit.

But the attorney who helped write the Arizona law said he carefully crafted the measure to avoid those constitutional issues.Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who handled immigration law and border security under U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft during the Bush administration, said the law does not seek to regulate immigration but merely adds state penalties for what are already federal crimes.

Under the legal doctrine of “concurrent enforcement,” he said, states are allowed to ban what is already prohibited by federal law. As an example, he said, the courts have upheld efforts by Arizona, California and other states to enact sanctions against employers who hire illegal migrants.Kobach, who is running as a Republican candidate for Kansas secretary of state, also dismissed claims that the bill will result in racial profiling. He said he took care to include an explicit ban on using “race, color or national origin” as the sole basis for stopping someone to ask for papers.

“I anticipate that anyone who challenges the law will throw everything but the kitchen sink at this to see if it will stick,” Kobach said. “But this is consistent with federal law.”Indeed, immigrant advocates raise several legal questions. The portion of the law that prohibits laborers from soliciting work in public places is particularly vulnerable, said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF.

The organization has successfully challenged similar laws in Arizona and California. In 2008, a federal judge ruled that an Arizona town could not enforce an anti-solicitation ordinance that advocates said infringed upon the free speech rights of day laborers.In addition, there probably will be due process claims because police officers won’t know who would be eligible for immigration relief, Saenz said. Many arrested won’t have the opportunity to make their claims in immigration court.”There are a lot of people who are going to be arrested and swept into this dragnet who have every right to be in this country,” he said.

Even before lawsuits are filed, immigrant advocates are seeking a commitment from federal officials that they will not enforce the law.On Tuesday, Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee that the law could distract the agency from using its resources to go after serious criminals.”We have concerns that at some point we’ll be responsible to enforce or use our immigration resources against anyone that would get picked up in Arizona,” said Napolitano, who noted that she had vetoed similar measures as Arizona governor.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder also said this week that he was considering a possible legal challenge to the law.Another lawsuit may come from one of Arizona’s own elected officials. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said this week that he planned to file a lawsuit.”I have under the charter the ability given to me by the people to file a lawsuit on behalf of the people,” Gordon said Tuesday to cheers from a packed City Council meeting and one angry cry of “socialism!”

As both sides gear up for their legal battle, the wild card is the panel of judges who will end up deciding the case.Judges have ruled differently on key immigration questions. In 2007, a federal judge ruled that a Pennsylvania city couldn’t punish landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them. A federal judge also ruled against a Texas measure that sought to ban landlords from renting to illegal migrants.Advocates didn’t succeed, however, in getting the courts to block another Arizona law, which shuts down businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. In 2008, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to stop the law before it took effect, saying that businesses and immigrant rights groups hadn’t shown an adequate need for delaying enforcement.

Schey said he is not confident that legal challenges against the Arizona case would prevail in today’s political and legal climate. The U.S. Supreme Court is a very different panel today than it was when a narrow majority of 5 to 4 struck down the 1975 Texas law denying free education to unauthorized migrant children.”It’s a far cry from a slam-dunk case,” Schey said. “It’s a very close call with the current composition of the Supreme Court. What’s really needed here is federal leadership.”

But Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine’s law school dean, argued that the Arizona law is a far more brazen attempt to regulate immigration than either the Texas or Proposition 187 cases. The Texas law was overturned primarily on equal protection grounds while the California law was struck down as an unconstitutional attempt to usurp federal immigration responsibility.”It is so firmly established that only the federal government can control immigration that I don’t see it,” he said, referring to chances that courts would uphold the Arizona law. “Even with a conservative court and a lot of sympathy to Arizona’s concerns, I don’t see it.”

Arizona's strict new immigration law escalates, immigrant advocates are preparing to move the fight to the courtroom

Arizona’s strict new immigration law escalates, immigrant advocates are preparing to move the fight to the courtroom, where their legal challenges have sunk other high-profile laws against illegal migrants. The Los Angeles attorney who successfully challenged Texas and California efforts to bar illegal migrants from public services said this week that the Arizona law was similarly doomed because it unconstitutionally attempts to usurp federal jurisdiction to regulate immigration and could violate guarantees of equal protection with selective enforcement against certain ethnic groups.The law makes it a state crime for illegal migrants to be in Arizona and requires police to check for evidence of legal status.

“The Arizona law is doomed to the dustpan of other unconstitutional efforts by local government to regulate immigration, which is a uniquely federal function,” said Peter Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles. But the attorney who helped write the Arizona law said he carefully crafted the measure to avoid those constitutional issues. Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who handled immigration law and border security under U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft during the Bush administration, said the law does not seek to regulate immigration but merely adds state penalties for what are already federal crimes.

Under the legal doctrine of “concurrent enforcement,” he said, states are allowed to ban what is already prohibited by federal law. As an example, he said, the courts have upheld efforts by California, Arizona and other states to enact sanctions against employers who hire illegal migrants.

Kobach, who is running as a Republican candidate for Kansas secretary of state, said he took care to include an explicit ban on using “race, color or national origin” as the sole basis for stopping someone to ask for papers.

“I anticipate that anyone who challenges the law will throw everything but the kitchen sink at this to see if it will stick,” Kobach said. “But this is consistent with federal law.” As both sides gear up for their legal battle, the wild card is the panel of judges who end up deciding the case. Judges have ruled differently on key immigration questions.

Even as judges have upheld state employer sanction laws, they have struck down laws banning illegal immigrants from renting property, most recently in Texas last month.Schey himself said he is not confident that legal challenges against the Arizona case would prevail in today’s political and legal climate. The U.S. Supreme Court is a very different panel today than it was when a narrow majority of 5-4 struck down the 1975 Texas law banning unauthorized migrant children from public schools, he said. “It’s a far cry from a slam-dunk case,” Schey said. “It’s a very close call with the current composition of the Supreme Court. What’s really needed here is federal leadership.”

new U.S.-Russian treaty to reduce long-range nuclear weapons

PRAGUE has agreed to host the signing of a new U.S.-Russian treaty to reduce long-range nuclear weapons, the Czech Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.The announcement is the clearest sign yet that Washington and Moscow are close to completing the deal on an accord to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, which expired in December.

Ministry spokesman Filip Kanda said that Prague agreed to host the signing of the accord by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when the negotiators reach a deal. He said negotiations have not been completed yet.

“As an ally, we have consulted with the U.S. side on an option for us to complete the signing when a deal is done,” Kanda said. “We’ve agreed,” he said.It was not clear if the plan for the signing ceremony had also been discussed with the Russian government.

The negotiations are still under way in Geneva. The treaty is likely to limit the number of deployed strategic warheads by the United States and Russia. Any agreement would need to be ratified by the legislatures of both countries and would still leave each with a large number of nuclear weapons, both deployed and stockpiled.

Both U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said following talks in Moscow last week that a deal was near – but not done.

The expired START treaty, signed by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush, required each country to cut its nuclear warheads by at least one-fourth, to about 6,000, and to implement procedures for verifying that each side was sticking to the agreement.

The two sides pledged to continue to respect the expired treaty’s limits on nuclear arms and allow inspectors to continue verifying that both sides were living up to the deal.

Obama and Medvedev agreed at a Moscow summit in July to cut the number of nuclear warheads each possesses to between 1,500 and 1,675 within seven years as part of a broad new treaty.

For Obama, signing the treaty in Prague would be a symbolic return to the city where he outlined his nuclear agenda in April and declared his commitment to “a world without nuclear weapons” in a sweeping speech before a crowd of many thousands.(AP)

Dozens of Palestinian stone-throwers clashed with Israeli police in East Jerusalem on Tuesday on a "day of rage" Hamas Islamists declared in protest at Israel's consecration of an ancient synagogue in the city

Dozens of Palestinian stone-throwers clashed with Israeli police in East Jerusalem on Tuesday on a “day of rage” Hamas Islamists declared in protest at Israel’s consecration of an ancient synagogue in the city.The violence presented another challenge to U.S. efforts to revive Middle East peace talks after Israel angered Palestinians and touched off a dispute with Washington by announcing plans last week to build 1,600 homes for Jews near East Jerusalem.Palestinians hurled stones at police and burned tires and trash bins in several areas of East Jerusalem, which Israel captured along with the West Bank in a 1967 war.

Police responded with tear gas and fired rubber bullets, witnesses said. Some 40 Palestinians were treated at East Jerusalem hospitals for minor injuries, medical officials said.A police spokesman said some 3,000 officers were put on high alert after Hamas, an Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip and wields influence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, called for anti-Israeli protests.”We call on the Palestinian people to regard Tuesday as a day of rage against the occupation’s (Israel’s) procedures in Jerusalem against al-Aqsa mosque,” Hamas said in a statement.

Hamas and Palestinian officials affiliated with its rival Fatah movement have said the restoration work at the ancient Hurva synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s walled Old City endangered al-Aqsa, situated some 400 meters (yards) away.Israel has denied the allegation.An inauguration ceremony was held Monday at the synagogue, which was blown up by Jordanian forces when they overran the Jewish Quarter in the 1948 Middle East war. Israel captured the area 19 years later.

Sporadic violence has erupted in recent weeks in Jerusalem after Israel decided to include West Bank religious sites in a Jewish national heritage plan stoked Palestinian anger.Citing biblical and historical links, Israel sees all of Jerusalem as its capital, a claim not recognized internationally. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In Washington Monday, a State Department spokesman voiced concern about the tensions over the rededication of the synagogue and appealed for calm.”We’re deeply disturbed by statements made by several Palestinian officials mischaracterizing the event in question, which can only serve to heighten the tensions that we see,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.

A crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations over the settlement housing project, opposed by Washington, deepened Monday after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s said he would not curb construction of homes for Jews in and around Jerusalem.After Netanyahu’s defiant comments, U.S. officials said U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who had planned to leave Washington Monday for discussions with Israeli and Palestinian leaders on getting indirect negotiations under way, had put off his departure.Announcement of the housing plan during a visit last week by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden embarrassed the White House and Palestinians, who had just agreed to begin indirect talks with Israel, demanded the project be scrapped first.U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in unusually blunt remarks, called Israel’s actions an insult.Clinton telephoned Netanyahu Friday to convey unspecified demands about the housing project as well as about demonstrating commitment to the U.S.-mediated peace talks, the State Department said, without elaborating.U.S. officials said they were still waiting for Israel’s formal response. Israeli media reports said Clinton had asked for the settlement plan to be scrapped and for Israel to agree to discuss core statehood issues with the Palestinians.(Reuters)