Not good enough.
For starters, Israel has agreed to the negotiations, which the PA is currently boycotting. Israel has, over the last couple of years, also eased its control over the West Bank.
Instead of a vague “you’ll know it when you see it”, why don’t you define what an actual commitment to peace talks (other than, you know, committing to peace talks) would look like.
Yet again, context does seem to matter. The issue was not that the US hasn’t made any demands about anything, ever, but nothing about actions taken towards peace. As we’ve gone over (ad-fucking-nauseum), land disputes do not invalidate peace. Vague noise about “showing commitment to U.S.-mediated indirect peace talks” is meaningless, especially since, yet again, Israel has agreed to peace talks and it’s the PA that’s currently boycotting them.
We’re through the looking glass. One nation agrees to peace talks, the second refuses, and we say that the first nation is not showing a willingness to engage in peace talks.