As Washington went to bed Monday night, officials, wonks, and reporters were still struggling to digest where the diplomatic crisis between the U.S. and Israel stood.

Following Friday's public dressing down of Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, announced via a State Department spokesman's readout of an angry call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Israeli side thought that a détente would follow and cooler heads would soon prevail. The Obama administration had made its point, and the Israeli side believed the harsh rhetoric would subside while Clinton waited for Netanyahu to respond to the list of demands she had read to him.

But that plan unraveled and confusion set in Monday after a roller-coaster couple of days where public and private signals crossed and different parts of the Obama administration seemed to be sending different messages.

As of late Monday evening, even Special Envoy George Mitchell didn't know what to do, after having delayed his trip back to the region by one day. A State Department official said Monday afternoon that Mitchell wasn't sure he could go ahead with his planned meetings unless he heard something constructive from the Israelis. Maybe he would just go on to Moscow for the scheduled meeting of the Quartet, the high-level diplomatic contact group that includes the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States.

Late Monday evening, the same official told The Cable that Mitchell would still leave Washington Monday night, "but he wants to be informed by the Israeli response before he departs." That struck Israeli sources as odd because in Israel it was the middle of the night at the time.

"They are waiting for some kind of response from Prime Minister Netanyahu and I'm under the impression the response is coming soon," an Israeli official who had no direct knowledge about Netanyahu's thinking told The Cable. But, he added quickly, "If they don't like the response ... then what?"

So what happened between Friday and Monday?

A State Department official confirmed to The Cable that initially there was a U.S. effort to avoid talking about Clinton's list of demands in order to allow Netanyahu to mull them over without feeling public pressure from all sides. It had been agreed an answer would come within "a couple of days," the Israel official said.

But then on Sunday, White House political advisor David Axelrod doubled down, talking openly about the administration's displeasure over the announcement that Israel would move forward with 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, calling it an "affront" and an "insult."

"We thought they would ratchet down the rhetoric on Saturday, but Axelrod didn't tone it down," the Israeli official said.

That led to a push on Sunday night and Monday by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful lobbying group that is usually in step with the Israeli government, calling on the administration to step back from the ledge. AIPAC was involved in encouraging  almost a dozen senior Congressmen and Senators issue statements on Monday criticizing the White House for escalating the war of words.

More worrying, perhaps, is the growing realization that Clinton's demands on Netanyahu might be impossible for him to fulfill, and therefore the administration may have drawn lines that will further reduce the possibility the "proximity" talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians can get off the ground.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Monday that Clinton wants Netanyahu to prove Israel is "willing to address the core issues at the heart of the peace process." The Israeli official said that there is no belief inside the Israeli government that final status issues such as borders can be negotiated through a third party, even the Americans.

Clinton also wants Netanyahu to reverse the announcement of the new East Jerusalem homes, but that also may be a complete nonstarter for the Israelis, because it would force them to abandon their long-held position that any issues related to Jerusalem are their own domain and prerogative.

A further complicating factor is that the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party has threatened to withdraw from Netanyahu's governing coalition if he puts Jerusalem up for discussion in peace talks with the Palestinians. Shas controls the Interior Ministry, which issued the settlement announcement that started the crisis in the first place.

"It's in Netanyahu's power to try to reverse the decision, but I doubt politically that can be achieved. Beyond that I don't see him as willing to do so," the Israeli official explained. "It could be a tactical starting point. But on the issue of Jerusalem per se, nobody's led the administration to believe there can be any kind of movement on our part."

And so, Mitchell heads to the region Tuesday without knowing what his plans are; Clinton heads to Moscow for a Quartet meeting later this week in which nobody knows what the path forward is; and Netanyahu prepares a response that he must know will conflict with what the White House wanted, at least as of last Friday.

And time is of the essence because Netanyahu is coming to Washington at the end of the week and Clinton is scheduled to speak at the AIPAC convention next Monday.

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg tried to lend an adult voice to the discussion Monday evening.

"Making peace in the Middle East is not easy, but you have to keep at it. And you have to deal with the fact that we have challenges on both sides," Steinberg said. "It's the responsibility of both sides to help create the conditions that make it possible to engage on this difficult task. Even with that, success is not guaranteed."

"Despite the difficulties and despite differences that we have with Israel over certain things, in particular the settlements, we have a deep and abiding commitment to Israel's security," Steinberg continued.

"That we pursue this not because we are uninterested in Israel's security, but precisely because we're interested in Israel's security."