Keep Golan in our hands

If there's an Intifada they call for the return of the Golan; if there is a war in Lebanon, then the Golan Heights are the solution; if our abducted soldiers have not been returned, it's the Golan Heights - and the list goes on. No matter how much the Mideast changes, to some the Golan Heights remain the answer to everything.

Such an attitude was expressed in Yedioth Ahronoth editorial Wednesday. "No Israeli cabinet has had the courage to tell the people that we would return the Golan Heights in exchange for full peace and normalization," it said.

The writer outlines the wonders of surrendering to Syria's dictates: It would prevent an unnecessary war, we would be making peace with another Arab state, we would be severing the Syria-Iran alliance, and we would be eliminating the Hamas and Jihad offices in Damascus among other things.

On the face of it there is an important point here. Perhaps in exchange for the Golan Heights regional balance would change drastically? And perhaps, as it was once said, Syria is indeed the key to the conflict with the Palestinians and Hizbullah in Lebanon?

Returning Golan dangerous

For years I have tried to explain that the above will not happen. Returning the Golan Heights is dangerous, because the moment the Syrians take it back they will populate it with a million Syrians in order to create a demographic balance against Israel.

Assad published a decree this month whereby he offers compensation to Syrians returning to live on the Golan Heights, particularly the Druze. The likely assumption that Syria would become embroiled in an ethnic war, similar to Lebanon and Iraq, means that there is a risk that an internal Syrian war could spread from the populated Golan to the Galilee and Israel as well.

In order to conduct a "popular struggle" in the Golan against Israel, there is a need for "a people."

And still, irrefutable evidence indicating that the return of the Golan Heights wouldn't change the regional balance was missing. This week, however, Assad provided this proof. In his "placating" interview to the German newspaper Der Spiegel he said:

"Even if we were to resolve our territorial dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights, we wouldn't achieve stability. And the Middle East is likely to be drawn into instability and anarchy."

Namely, the Syrian president is telling Israelis outright that whether the Golan Heights is returned or not, the wars with the Palestinians and Hizbullah (whom he supports) will continue. If this is the case, why should we return the Golan Heights and expose Israel to further danger?

Paradoxically, Israel's is in a very good position vis-à-vis Syria. Israel occupies land overlooking Damascus and it has a quiet border. Return of the Golan Heights would mean losing control of the land and creating imminent unrest, because for the minority Alawi regime in Syria peace could means losing the legitimacy to rule and could lead to anarchy.

Alternately, Israel could face a million Syrian settlers positioned on the threshold of the Galilee who would pose a new and unnecessary existential threat.

It is clear, therefore, that Israel must stand its guard against a country that supports terror such as Syria, but this has always been the face of things.

A little more patriotism and a little less defeatism won't do much harm to the nation.