In attempts to find a solution to Turkey’s long-lasting Kurdish issue, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has officially approved “talks” with Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the PKK. Hakan Fidan, head of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization and a close confidante of Erdogan, is the point man in these “talks.”

The ruling party has gone out of its way to describe these meetings as “talks” rather than “negotiations.” Since news broke that Fidan spent two days on Imrali Island, where Ocalan is imprisoned, just before the New Year, people have been excited about the prospects for consigning this conflict to the history books. With that possibility in mind, many talking heads – from the president to politicians to journalists – have grown increasingly anxious about even commenting on the matter, lest they say something that might imperil this crucial opportunity for peace. Nevertheless, they keep talking.

Not that there's anything wrong with being hopeful – no doubt we all want to see an end to the bloodshed – but I sense this effort is largely for show, like players passing the ball around a soccer field with no intention of scoring a goal. I only hope to be proven wrong, but let me explain why I think the way I do:

Eyup Can, editor in chief of Radikal and a devoted Erdogan supporter, laid out in a Jan. 8 article what he said was the agreed framework for a peace plan with Ocalan. Under the framework, the Kurds would give up their arms on two conditions: a grant of house arrest for Ocalan and general amnesty for his fighters. In return, the Kurds would abandon their goal of building an independent Kurdistan, and would even forsake “democratic autonomy.” They wouldn't even seek to change the system of centralized governance in Turkey into a federal one.