What's the point in holding peace talks simply for the sake of the process?

When the US Secretary of State John Kerry finally got Israelis and Palestinians back around the table for negotiations last July, few were optimistic about the renewed peace talks. It soon became obvious that late April was an unrealistic deadline for a final agreement. Kerry scaled back, and the new aim was to reach a preliminary “framework” agreement by this date, with the rest of the year to iron out the final details of a deal. Now, even this downgraded goal is looking ambitious.

The latest stumbling block is a scheduled prisoner release. When talks began last summer, Israel agreed to free 104 long-term Palestinian prisoners in four stages, with the final stage at the end of March. The first three were carried out – but Israel refused to go ahead with the final release, due to happen on 29 March, unless the Palestinians agree to extend talks.

The four prisoner releases were a cornerstone of the US-led peace plan, although the final group was the most controversial, because it included Arab citizens of Israel and people convicted of murder. Prisoner releases are an extremely emotional issue on both sides: Palestinians see prisoners held in Israel as freedom fighters, while Israel balks at seeing convicted criminals receiving heroes’ welcomes.

Israeli officials say that they do not have to carry out the final release because, they claim, the Palestinians are refusing to negotiate in good faith. “This release was meant to be carried out as the talks proceed, and not when they fall apart,” said Yuval Steinitz, a Cabinet minister with the Likud party. In response, Mohammad Shtayyeh, an aide to Mahmoud Abbas, accused Israel of “trying to blackmail us”.

The US state department said it was working “intensively” to resolve the dispute. The situation is something of a catch-22: Palestinian negotiators say they will not consider extending talks without the prisoners being freed, while Israel is refusing to release them without a commitment to more talks.

Quite apart from the group of prisoners who were due to be released on 29 March, Palestinian leaders have said they will only extend talks if they get something in return. Abbas will seek the release of 1000 further prisoners, as well as a freeze in Israeli settlement construction in the Occupied Territories. Abbas is under pressure from the Palestinian public, who do not want capitulation: in order to continue talks while not appearing to have failed, he must demonstrate some tangible gain. Israel has not yet responded to the Palestinian Authority’s demands. Benjamin Netanyahu has said he will present an additional release to his cabinet, but approval is not guaranteed – his government is dominated by hardliners who have already criticized the previous release.

Last week, Kerry interrupted a visit to Rome to go to Amman for talks with Abbas, in an attempt to convince him to continue negotiations beyond the deadline and to press Israel to go ahead with the planned prisoner release. On Sunday, Netanyahu said that the talks were “verging on a crisis.”

Clearly, he is right. The talks are at crisis point – and it goes beyond the failure to release prisoners. Several weeks ago, Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Yaalon, said that Kerry’s attempts to broker peace were unrealistic and naïve, and questioned America’s commitment to Israel. He has since back-pedalled from these remarks, saying that the US is “truly our best friend”. But he spoke for many when he questioned the validity of the whole process. Many Palestinians fear that Israel is simply using the continuation of talks as a smokescreen behind which to continue with settlement building. Last year, the number of new settlement buildings doubled from the previous year.

Neither side has directly threatened to walk away from talks. That is because neither wants to be seen as responsible for the break-down of the process, and neither wants to jeopardize their relationship with the US. But there is little point in holding peace talks simply for the sake of the process; it seems that neither side has much faith that there is a shared end goal in sight.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.