A TOP Syrian official actively involved in Middle East peace negotiations told me that, following United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher's visits to the area in early August, Syria and Israel were almost ready to conclude a declaration of principles leading to an agreement. It was a two-part document: First, a declaration of principles – "Full withdrawal for full peace" – that would have obligated Israel to give up all of the Golan, and Syria to offer a comprehensive peace in return. And second, an agenda for negotiating the comprehensive peace, including establishment of several committees that would deal with mutual security, military issues, the settlements, and peaceful relations.

PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's belated condemnation of the slaying of Beit El resident Haim Mizrahi by members of his own Fatah faction was hardly reassuring. For many Israelis, such episodes offer a preview of what can be expected from an unreliable partner to the peace process.

Following weeks of accusing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of trying to make peace with charlatans who will do anything to gain their "real" objective, the eventual destruction of Israel, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu finally has come up with a plan of his own.

Frustrated by the Israeli-PLO agreement, Syria's President Hafez al-Assad is trying to reposition himself in his negotiations with Israel to regain control over the Golan Heights.

The Rabin government's decision to continue to negotiate with the three top Palestinian delegates despite their new status as members of a PLO committee that oversees the talks is another step in the right direction. Israel and the United States should now make the next logical move and begin formal meetings with the PLO under certain conditions that the Tunis leadership is likely to accept.

A growing number of Israeli government officials, led by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, believe the sealing off of the West Bank and Gaza should be made permanent. They say notions about Israeli-Palestinian coexistence have proven illusory. Although closure has halted the random killing of Israelis and may seem to have opened up new political options for a solution, sealing off the territories would be disastrous for both sides.

The opposition to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his handling of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations is gaining in momentum in Israel. Benjamin Natanyahu, recently elected Likud leader and author of a new book, "A Place Among Nations" (Bantam), is leading the fight to topple Mr. Rabin, vowing not to surrender strategic territory, even if that means the collapse of the peace process.

The 10th round of the peace talks may prove to be the last one before the parties adjourn despairing, unless the US projects itself forcefully as a full partner and advances some concrete steps toward a solution.

Exchanging territory for peace has not always provided the basis for Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations. In fact, for more than two decades Syria has demanded Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights without offering peace in return, and Israel has sought full peace with Syria without ceding the entire Golan. Both parties have accepted the principle for exchanging territory for peace based on UN Resolution 242, but how much territory for what kind of peace remains at an impasse. Since Israel captured the Golan in 1967, both Labor and Likud-led governments have defined the Golan as strategically critical to Israeli defense.