When is Peace More Likely?
Not only is the land for peace theory dangerous; it has no
logic to it. Take for example, the Golan. Despite all the vehement anti-Israeli rhetoric
emanating from Damascus since 1974, and even though Syrian troops were involved in the
Lebanon War in 1982, there has never been an attack mounted from the Syrian front. Why?
For a very simple reason. Situated on the Golan Heights, Israeli artillery is pointed
directly at Damascus. The terrain is more or less flat, and tanks and infantry can advance
without great difficulty. In such a situation, any Syrian leader will think hard before he
contemplates a war with Israel. The risks are far too high.
Consider for a second the situation if that were no longer true, if there were no
Israeli guns on the Golan, and Syrian guns were positioned there instead. If the deterrent
of fear were removed by Israel's ceding the Golan, would the likelihood of a Syrian attack
be increased or decreased?
Giving away land for peace means exchanging strategic positions for a mere piece of
paper. And it is legitimate to question how much that piece of paper is worth. For the
Arabs have broken every treaty they ever made with Israel. And, for that matter, they have
a sorry record of keeping the agreements they have made among themselves.