A somewhat ambivalent article. It's saying that peace with Syria is not worth it but if Syria makes some humanitarian gestures, then it is worth it. Let's see what Syria is offering then we'll know if peace is worth it.

How about he gives us unconditional peace or we give him a steady suppply of bonews of Syrian soldiers?

B"H An admission is made that Assad has nothing to offer. So what is the point of negotiating with him? To humiliate an Arab in the region? Is that really serious diplomacy or a childhood game that is being played out here? I think it does not make sense to enter negotiations unless one is convinced that there is something the negotiations are going to provide that is beneficial. He wants negotiations to position his hawks, as you call them on the Golan. How is this beneficial to Israel, to have the Syrian hawks who want to launch guerilla attacks sitting on the Golan Heights? The Golan was an integral part of Israel's defense against the Lebanon attack from Hisbullah. I can only see that making sense if Israel wanted to start a preemptive war with Iran and Syria. Syria takes the bait, launches the first attack, and then Israel has to take countermeasures and is provided a land-bridge to Iraq, and from there hops over to Iran. But outside of a military context like that, it makes no sense for Israel to allow for such a scenario. Certainly it is not a peace move we are talking about here. I just do not see Israel's objectives mapped out clearly enough where Israel can afford to start such negotiations. And the Arabs do not appreciate being played with without firm expectations set. It does not adhere to protocol. I see the investment better made in anti-missile defense technology. Wars are expensive and damaging to the economy unless planned properly. There is no sense of duplicating what is happening between Hammas and Abbas in Israel. Why startup a war that Israel does not have commitment to resolving? Israel needs an exit strategy for its wars before it enters them, and this peace of the puzzle seems missing here. At least in Iraq, the US story makes some sense: its sets up a new regime that is more democratic, gets it up and running, and then lets it function. But with Iran, that whole dialogue and thinking has not been taken care of. In short, I think such negotiations are premature until the bigger picture is truly thought out much better.

Not at all, He's saying sometimes one does things for the sake of appearances. One says things so as to placate ones allies or to avoid uniting ones enemies. The Israeli public and its friends abroad would better serve the interests of the nation if they understood such simple realities. Sometimes it serves your interest to speak of peace or the "roadmap" or whatever, even when you know war is around the corner.