A lot has changed in the Middle East since the Arab uprisings began. But one thing that remains constant is the obsession of international diplomats with the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process”. Monday saw yet another effort to drag the unwilling parties back to the negotiating table. A meeting of the Quartet (the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia), held in Washington, was expected to call for talks to restart, as a matter of urgency.

Nobody seems minded to point out an obvious fact. With the Middle East in turmoil, starting a new round of Israeli-Palestinian talks is completely pointless.

Speaking last week Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, made the opposite case, listing several reasons why she thinks it crucial to start talks. Reason number one was “changes in the surrounding neighbourhood” – which seems a rather mild description for revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, civil wars in Syria and Libya, and the destabilisation of Arab states from Morocco to Saudi Arabia.

In fact, it is precisely the “changes in the surrounding neighbourhood” that make it a bad idea to waste precious energy on a peace process that is now a sideshow.

Some European diplomats cling to the idea that the Palestinian issue remains at the heart of the instability in the Middle East. But that is a theological position that can only be upheld by resolutely ignoring actual events. If there is one thing that the uprisings across the Middle East have in common, it is that they have very little to do with the Palestinians. What is more, despite the eager predictions of many outside analysts, the occupied Palestinians territories have not (so far) exploded into Egyptian-style insurrection.

The main bearing that the Arab spring has had on the Palestinian issue is to change the calculations of both sides to the conflict, in ways that make them even less likely to risk negotiating a peace settlement.

At a time when Arab leaders everywhere are under attack for being remote, corrupt and elitist, it is simply too risky for the leadership of Fatah, the Palestinian faction in control of the West Bank, to enter into tortuous negotiations with the Israelis that will inevitably lead to accusations that they are selling out their own people. For the moment, the Palestinians seem much more interested in trying to reconcile Fatah and Hamas – and in pursuing the possibility of recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September.

The Israelis are also in a defensive crouch. Israel’s regional policy was built around a peace treaty with Egypt, cordial relations with Turkey, a cold peace with Syria and a shared interest with Saudi Arabia in the containment of Iran. The upheavals across the Middle East raise questions about the durability of all of these arrangements – which make it highly unlikely that the Israeli government will take any further risks by pulling troops out of the West Bank.

There is, of course, real doubt about whether the current Israeli government actually has a genuine interest in trading “land for peace”. But even an Israeli government that was completely committed to the idea of a “two-state solution” would hesitate to take any long-term decisions in such a rapidly-changing environment.

One of the great potential rewards for the Israelis of an eventual peace deal with the Palestinians is the prospect that it will lead to a permanent peace with the wider Arab world. But with almost all of the Arab regimes tottering, Israel could have no guarantee that such a peace would last. There are also certain practical difficulties. Any peace with Syria would involve Israel handing back the occupied Golan Heights – but the government of Bashar al-Assad is otherwise engaged, right now.

Rather than waste time trying to pursue a final peace settlement, the “international community” should set more modest goals. The key point, at the moment, should be to try to stop either side from doing things that make a future peace deal actually impossible.

When it comes to the Palestinians, that means continuing to put pressure on Hamas to recognise the state of Israel. Without that, it is hard to see the Israelis agreeing to start talks. As far as Israel is concerned, the US and Europe should take a much harder line on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories that continue to eat into the land of a future Palestinian state. In an ideal world, the Obama administration would cut aid to Israel every time a settlement was expanded. Instead, Congress is currently waving the financial big stick in the wrong direction, at the Palestinians – for having the temerity to pursue their UN bid in September. Yet Israeli and Congressional hostility to the Palestinian charge at the UN is overdone. A General Assembly resolution without Security Council backing would change very little, legally or politically.

Still, the Americans and the Europeans do not relish the idea of being put on the spot at the UN. That might explain their eagerness to get talks started again. The plan seems to be to start a pointless peace process, in the hope of averting a meaningless UN declaration.

Meanwhile, the real action in the Middle East is going on in Egypt, Libya, Syria and the Gulf. Until the outcome of those dramas becomes much clearer, trying to force progress on the Palestinian question is a futile displacement activity.