Online gambling sites, which have turned into an entertainment pandemic in the West, would probably have users split over the fate of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Are the optimists just wasting their money? Is there anyone who would be willing to bet on the negotiations being renewed? The probability for both outcomes is identical. The negotiations can still be salvaged, despite both sides losing hope. If a permanent accord would have been within reach, I would have ascribed failure a much greater probability because Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would have run for the hills to avoid a peace-signing ceremony, not unlike what he did in 2008 when then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a generous offer. He would have acted like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, who refused to finalize a deal in the Camp David summit in 2000. But now we are talking about an intermediate phase that would allow both sides to talk longer. Both sides would have to make manageable concessions. Assuming both Israel and the Palestinians (not to mention the U.S.) want to prolong the peace talks, they may very well be extended. Abbas has tried to put on a show on Wednesday, saying he has already filed the necessary paperwork that would have the Palestinian Authority join 15 international organizations as a sovereign state. But when the talks resume he would still be able to ask those organizations not to consider his application. Thus, what we have been seeing, on both sides, is nothing but more brinkmanship. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can marshal enough support in his government to see the talks extended despite the dissent among his ministers; likewise, Abbas could live with a deal to extend the talks. But brinkmanship is very much like a game of chicken, with both cars racing toward one another. Eventually, one would hope, one driver is going to swerve, having figured he would prefer to stay alive than to win the race. The only problem is that history is replete with such contests where neither driver had the common sense to avoid a costly collision. Such an outcome happens when neither side has control of the situation. The talk about the release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard seemed out of place. This was the latest example of how he has been mistreated. The judge in his trial ignored the plea bargain he had struck with the prosecution (in large part because of then U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger). Moreover, the U.S. has been spying on its allies and friends (including Israel). And finally, Pollard has already spent some 29 years in prison. His release was on the table because U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wanted to give Israel some perks. He wanted Pollard to be used as the sugar that helps the medicine go down, while effectively defying the U.S. intelligence community. In the wake of the stir this has caused inside the coalition, the U.S. would probably be very happy to rescind this offer. But why make the American decision easier? The government must hold an up-or-down vote on the deal, without Pollard being factored into the equation. If it decides to embrace it, Pollard's release could make things easier, and everyone would recite with extra devotion the prayer that praises God for releasing the imprisoned.
