WASHINGTON — Hopes for the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians rekindled last week with the creation of a broad and more centrist governing coalition in Israel. The leaders of the Likud and Kadima parties declared that they would work to “advance a responsible peace process.” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel that she welcomed the commitment. “No more excuses for Netanyahu,” titled an editorial in the Financial Times. Now that he is freer from the influence of ultranationalists, “the real measure of a reinvigorated Mr. Netanyahu” will be “Israel’s regional and Palestinian policies.”

Is this hope well-founded? Probably not. Those who assume that a new centrist coalition can advance peace talks have also been assuming that the talks stalled, at least partly, because of the previous, not-so-centrist coalition. That may be a comforting view, but it hardly is accurate.

On Monday the 27 foreign ministers of the European Union slammed Israel for complicating peace talks with the Palestinians by building more settlements this year than in years past. Those “developments on the ground,” their joint statement said, “threaten to make a two-state solution impossible.”

Three and a half years ago, the Obama administration also believed that Israel’s settlement policy was the crux of the problem. Back then, President Barack Obama was pushing Israel to freeze settlement construction. But then he quit pushing, partially because of mounting political pressure from pro-Israel advocates in the United States, partially because of Israel’s growing defiance. But he also stopped, shortly after a 2009 freeze to which Israel had reluctantly agreed, because it turned out to do little to jumpstart the peace process.

A freeze is no substitute for a plan, Shaul Mofaz — once a Knesset member in the opposition, now Netanyahu’s ally — explained at the time. “The Palestinians are saying that the moratorium is insufficient,” he, among others, had noticed.

Things haven’t much changed. A broader ruling coalition may now help Netanyahu ignore the ultranationalists. But any limit on construction that even this new coalition might approve would hardly satisfy the Palestinians. Mofaz himself believes that building in the so-called settlement blocks — where the vast majority of settlers live — should continue.

Israel’s policies will not change much now because the differences between Netanyahu and Mofaz on the Palestinian issue are small while the differences between them and the Palestinians’ demands are great — just as great as they were in 2008, when talks between Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and the Kadima government failed.

Last week, Netanyahu sent the Palestinian leadership a letter asking to resume talks. The response was fast and furious: the content of his letter “did not represent grounds for returning to negotiations,” Palestinian officials said. The hopeful might read this refusal as a sign that the Palestinians want Israel to show its seriousness before they soften. But the pragmatists might say that an observation Mofaz made a few years back still stands: there is no move Israel is willing to make that would satisfy the Palestinians and lure them back to negotiations.

Peace talks have stalled not because of settlements; they have stalled because the two sides haven’t been ready to accept the complex deal that would be a practical solution to this conflict. They have not agreed about what land Israel would evacuate, the status of Jerusalem, how to handle Palestinian refugees or security arrangements.

With the new coalition, Netanyahu has lost an excuse to give in to settler expansionism. For Israel’s sake, and for the sake of any future deal with the Palestinians, one would hope that this will result in, well, Netanyahu’s battling settler expansionism. But it won’t do much to bring about a compromise with the Palestinians. For that failure, Netanyahu needs no excuse. There are plenty of reasons.