Why is Israel Offering to Talk to Syria?

I am not much for conspiracy theories but the post-war regional machinations is leaving me scratching my head for explanations. I am referring specifically at Israel's appointment of Yakov Dayan as project manager for possible negotiations with Syria. One starts to wonder whether whether the war was not only premeditated but whether it was a package deal.

Let's quickly recount the facts:

• Hezbollah captures 2 Israeli soldiers on July 12th.
• Israel, decides within a couple of hours to launch an all out assault and Hezbollah and Lebanon.
• The US cheers the Israelis on and blocks all attempts at an immediate cease fire despite heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon
• On day 33 despite an Air offensive followed by land invasion, Hezbollah still manages to lob a record number of rockets unto Northern Israel.
• During the whole conflict, the Syrian government keeps a low profile. They have their idle soldiers run around and dig trenches on the border!
• A ceafire is declared on August 15th. Israel and Hizbollah both claim victory as does, believe it or not, Bashar Asad.
• August 20th, Syria and Israel want to talk it over!

So as Nasrallah and Sanioura compete for the affection of their mutual constituents by handing out wads of 100 dollar bills, I am trying to understand the big picture. Here is what I see as possible explanations:

1. The war was premeditated with American support with the latter pushing Israel to bait Syria, the neocons' next domino en route to Iran. Bashar is rattled, promises to play nice by cutting off Hizbollah in return for negotiations on the Golan heights with Israel.
2. The war was premeditated but so was the outcome in agreement with Syria. Israel would cut Hezbollah down to size and then Damascus would finish them off by cutting arms supply. In return Bashar gets to talk about the Golan with Israel
3. The war is premeditated -with or without American collusion- but Israel is taken aback by Hezbollah's ferocious resistance and the range and number of their missiles. The IDF's performance is also dismal. Israel is rattled. In trying to neutralize the threat on their Northern border from a proxy of the Iranian regime, they offer, in spite of the US administration's donkey-like stubborn opposition, to talk to the middle man, Bashar.

None of these scenarios however fit the reality on the ground. Wars are messy affairs and rarely end up the way the planners had envisioned. Explanation 1 and 2 assumes that Hizbollah, if not defeated, is at least seriously weakened. It sure does not look like it in the immediate aftermath of the war, at least not politically. There is little doubt that Bashar would give up Hizbullah for political expediency and certainly if his regime is threatened. I am not sure though, that he would strike a deal up front with Israel to do that; so scratch option 2. The reality, I think, is a combination of 1 and 3.

These scenarios deal with the ultimate intentions of Syria and Israel and ignore the upcoming political power struggle in Lebanon. This struggle may derail any predictable endgame that may be envisioned by either Syria or Israel. I am afraid that, as others have said, the war over Lebanon is not over.