To foreign eyes, the never-ending conflicts in the Middle East are perceived as a Gordian knot waiting to be loosened by simply putting Israel and its foes in one room to talk until white smoke rises above the negotiation table. Nevertheless, veteran mediators who know the region understand that this is pure wishful thinking. Direct and indirect talks between Israel and its main rivals – the Palestinians and Syria – have been conducted, although not continuously, over the last 20 years; and yet, the mutual mistrust is still a substantial barrier. The hostility between Israel and its main rivals is embedded with layers of war scars, religious struggles and claims for regaining lost/occupied lands. Putting Israeli and Syrian, or Palestinian, officials in one room is not enough; two preliminary conditions, I believe, must prevail: each side must reveal its expectations regarding the endgame of the negotiation; and each side should foresee its own benefit from achieving peace, comparing to the concessions it will have to make. Only by doing so, a critical layer of mutual trust can be achieved.

Recently we were told about a new Syrian declaration: Syria is willing to revive peace talks with Israel. At first sight it seems one of those empty declarations where only lip service should be paid. But a closer inspection shows us that the preliminary conditions are there.

The peace equation with Syria is simple: Syria wants to regain the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967. The Golan Heights have no historical significance to Israel, and indeed it was populated by tens of thousands of Syrians until 1967. In return, Syria will conduct full diplomatic relations with Israel, including opening embassies. We must take into account that the starting point of Israel-Syria relations is much simpler than the complex situation between Israel and Iran or Israel and the Palestinians: religious rivalry, historical resentment and local political tensions cause the latter situation to become much more volatile than the former.

The benefits for Syria are also clear: its economy is weak and underdeveloped, its security budget is high; its international status fluctuates between being a member of the "axis of evil" and being seen as a regional "bitter pill" one should swallow. Syria is never conceived as a real positive regional factor. Achieving peace with Israel will attract much more international economic investments, boost local economy and position Syria as an important regional player.

In this context, Israel has difficulty in calling to these preliminary conditions. Firstly, the mere issue whether to return the Golan Heights to Syria (and to evacuate its Israeli settlers) is one of the most heated arguments in both the political and public arenas. Secondly, it seems Israel is unsure regarding the benefits from achieving peace.

I believe that if Israel should respond positively to the Syrian offer, it will find out that Syria can in fact function as a mediator between Israel and the militant regional players: Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Muallem, hinted in an interview in late December about Syria's peace initiative and its close contact with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, saying that this crucial subject will only be discussed after full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan.

Syria is a key regional player to work together. In his December interview, Muallem offered a multi-phased plan to the Syrian demand of "peace in return of land". According to which after each Israeli withdrawal from a certain part of the Golan Heights, bilateral relationship will deepen.

To sum up, Syria has a potential not only to become the third Arab state to sign peace agreements with Israel; it can also use its regional contacts to become a crucial factor in any future regional peace arrangements.