The same applies here: Once in a while someone proposes the timeworn idea for a breakthrough agreement with Syria, which would ultimately allow the Syrians to dip their feet in the Lake of Galilee. Is it a breakthrough idea or a dead end?
The equation we are being threatened with is as follows: Handing over the Golan Heights to the Syrians or facing a Syrian attack. However, the more accurate equation, which should be made clear to the Syrians as well, is that if Syria attacks us, not only will it not get the Golan Heights, but the survival of its regime – a minority dictatorship run by the Alawite sect – will be in jeopardy.
This is the time to explain that the Alawite minority, which makes up some 12 percent of the overall Syrian population, is a pagan religious sect that worships the sun and moon. The sect is shunned by the other Muslim denominations, which advocate its death.
According to Islam, Alawites are worse than Christians and Jews. Because of the ongoing threat hovering above them, the Alawites' main goal is the preservation of their rule, and this is the prism through which their various acts towards Israel should also viewed.
Egypt agreement cannot serve as model
Syria does not have, nor has it ever had, anything but an internal policy of how to maintain the regime. Syria will either embark on war or not depending on whether such course of action would be perceived by the ruling government as benefiting its survival. Decisions are not made in accordance with what may or may not benefit the Syrian people.
Even in an event that the Alawite regime would get the Golan Heights back, but at the same time understand that aggression towards Israel would serve its purpose, it wouldn't hesitate to take such action. Because the Alawite regime's major problem is not losing the Golan Heights, but rather, how the minority will continue to brutally rule the majority of the population.
Therefore, if it becomes clear to Syria that attacking Israel would endanger the Alawite regime, its considerations may well be different. In other words: Let us be, and you can preserve your dark age dictatorship.
The agreement with Egypt and the handing over of the Sinai desert cannot serve as a precedent regarding the Golan Heights, because there is a great difference between Syria and Egypt: The Egyptian dictatorship does not lack legitimacy based on ethnicity.
There is also a difference between the 200 kilometers of the Sinai desert and the small area of the Golan, which is important to Israel's water supply and dominates the Hula Valley, Lake Galilee and it vicinity.
The Golan Heights are void of Syrians (thee or four Druze villages are located there and they are happy to be under Israeli rule) and is full of thriving Israeli communities. The current border line on the Golan also has topographic security significance.
This was the cost of prior Syrian aggression; the past cannot be undone.