it blows my mind that merely talking is viewed as some kind of reward, something to be withheld from states that don't deserve it. both olmert and bush seem to view negotiations that way. it's so bizarre. talks are just talk. you're not giving up anything by agreeing to discuss your issues with another country.
plus just agreeing to talk to your enemies gives you something important: the high moral ground. for years israel's official policy was that it was open to peace discussions with any of their neighbors. when syria refused to talk with them in those days,israel could present itself as the side that was interested in peace. israel didn't give anything by agreeing to talk, indeed, israel maintained that policy even as some of its leaders were saying they would never give up golan--the main sticking point between israeli-syrian relations. even when any talks are certain to be unfruitful, just leaving the possibility open strengthens a country's position.
and as an added bonus every once in a while talks can produce actual results. it doesn't happen all the time and with regard to the syrian-israeli situation a peace agreement is a real long shot. but it doesn't help israeli interests at all to refuse syria's rare offer to negotiate.
