Nobody suspects Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Israel's chief negotiator in the peace talks with the Palestinians, of trying to maneuver around the phrase "two states for two peoples" to gain time without having to reach a final agreement. Livni and attorney Yitzhak Molcho took it upon themselves to conduct a dialogue with Palestinian representatives and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. On Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin leveled harsh criticism against Livni, wondering aloud why she restored contact with chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat after Abbas signed 15 applications to international institutions, defying his earlier commitment to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Responding to the accusations, Livni said that because the Palestinians had broken their commitment to hold off on unilateral statehood measures among international institutions, Israel was no longer obligated to execute the fourth stage of Palestinian terrorist releases, which could have included Israeli Arabs. Anybody who spoke to Livni of late would have heard her deep disappointment; she even spoke in a language that the Palestinians get. Livni is a litmus test for determining the Israeli center's desire to achieve the two-state proposal. Television presenter Arad Nir reminded former minister Dan Meridor (Likud) that according to former Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice, Livni had begged Abbas to resist complete peace talks with then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, urging him to wait until the next government, when she would be prime minister. That doesn't sound too logical. Mostly, it's unimportant. Abbas has proved time and again that he fears a comprehensive arrangement, regardless of whether the Israeli side is represented by Olmert, Ehud Barak, Netanyahu or Livni, in chronological order. He is always a naysayer. The recent artificial crisis failed to satisfy Ramallah. The PA bumped up the number of terrorists it asked Israel to release, included former Fatah Secretary-General Marwan Barghouti, and demanded an early commitment to draw the borders. The PA even sought to seize the "Right of Return" for some 15,000 descendants of Arab refugees, who left Israel during the 1948 War for Independence. Even if the Palestinian list of demands had been accepted, if only in part, there would have been nothing to discuss. Everything had been predetermined. It's still too early to guess whether the current confrontation heralds the end of peace talks, and if we can turn the clock back. Israel and the Palestinians must zealously assume attack positions, even though their interest in acting them out is dubious at best given each side's cool, clear understandings. On Thursday, Abbas was quoted as saying he had no intention of withdrawing the PA's applications to international institutions, even if Israel responds by assassinating him. It could have been a defining moment for the Israeli spokesperson, who could have dismissed Abbas, saying it wasn't necessary for Israel to act so violently. In reality, the Palestinians themselves violated their commitments to the peace talks, set to expire at the end of the month. So Israel responded by canceling the fourth stage of prisoner releases, which belonged to the previous round. Both sides must climb down and meet eye to eye on the current diplomatic reality. It's not too late to get peace talks back on track, but it is getting very late.
