Cacophony of voices

A cacophony of voices sounded over the weekend on the subject of the peace talks with the Palestinians and the likelihood of their culminating in a deal.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had a productive meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. He added that he would not uproot a single community, a statement that was not lost on the Palestinians, who promptly proceeded to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

But Kerry was not taken aback by Netanyahu's comments. He knows the eviction of Israelis is not on the table, at least not in the foreseeable future. He also knows Netanyahu's statement ensures that peace process detractors on the Right remain content, allowing him to move forward with the talks.

The only problem is that the voices were sending mixed messages. On Saturday, Livni acted as if the peace talks were progressing as expected, as if things were just fine. Kerry was somewhat pessimistic when he talked with a U.S. news outlet, but his speech at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting was upbeat. It was all about the facts; he did not offer any predictions.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas contributed to this spectrum of voices by repeating his famous "noes": no to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state; no to giving up the so-called "right of return" of descendants of Palestinians refugees from 1948. Anytime Abbas sounds this rhetoric he validates Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon's views. Ya'alon insists the Palestinians have no plans to make peace or to forge normal relations with the Jewish state and that his generation would not witness a reconciliation.

The peace talks have not been about the core issues, and they have only touched on the more substantial issue of who controls and governs the Jordan Valley and for how long. Kerry would like the talks to continue for another year. Israel would gladly comply, but it does not want to pay for the delay. It feels that its pledge to release 104 prisoners who were convicted of terrorism or national security crimes covers the surcharge it might be asked to pay if the talks were to be extended. But the Palestinians believe this gesture was only germane to the first round of negotiations.

This is where things stand right now.

If the two sides show no signs of compromise, Kerry might have to make do with the bare minimum: He would do what it takes to maintain a peace process. He would resort to publishing a framework for continued talks. Such a document would outline the American position -- which caters to both sides -- without seeking the endorsement of either party. This would not be considered consequential for Israel, the Palestinians or the U.S. In fact, it would allow the talks continue without having the two sides commit to gestures like those of six months ago.

Both sides have been hunkering down. This could be a tactical maneuver that is designed to extract concessions just before the talks conclude. No one knows.

Perhaps there is no way to avoid a crisis. You cannot ignore Kerry's pessimism on television, even though it was offset by his speech. All parties appreciate the shadow he has cast by airing his grim assessment.

Even if things fail to move forward by the end of April, there would still be the possibility of striking an internationally recognized interim deal between Israel, the U.S. and Europe (possibly even with the Arab League) that would include a partial Israeli pullout. No Israeli communities would be dismantled; no Palestinian signature would be affixed.

Netanyahu said it takes three to tango in the Middle East. But that maxim is true only when one seeks a comprehensive peace deal. Interim agreements require only two -- Israel and the democratic West.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו