JERUSALEM—Ari Shavit, one of Israel’s most influential journalists, made the four-hour drive up to the Golan Heights from Jerusalem last month and parked on high ground overlooking the broad plain stretching towards Damascus, 35 miles to the east.
Shortly before the outbreak of violence in Syria last year, Shavit had written an article calling on the Israeli government to resume negotiations with Damascus. Peace with Syria, he argued, would be a strategic blow to Iran, bring the Palestinians to compromise, and strengthen the forces of moderation in the Arab world. On last month’s visit, he remained for hours looking out over the beautiful landscape until the sun began to set, thankful that his advice had been ignored.
If it had been adopted, he subsequently wrote, "global jihadis would be camping near Ein Gev [a kibbutz abutting the Golan Heights] and there would be Al-Qaida bases on the shores of Lake Kinneret [the Sea of Galilee, likewise abutting the former border]. Northern Israel and the country's water sources would be bordering this summer on an armed, extremist Islamic entity that could not be controlled."
Shavit’s epiphany is shared by most of the Israelis who had favored pulling back from the Golan in exchange for a peace treaty with Syria, a position that had been favored by as much as 40 percent of the population. Several Israeli governments had come close to such a deal and even the military favored it, believing it would usher in a new era of stability. "In the absence of an arrangement with Syria," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said two years ago, "we could have an all-out, regional war."
However, the anarchy consuming Syria has confirmed the view that in the Arab world anchors of stability can be set adrift overnight. "Retaining the Golan is more important for Israel than reaching a peace treaty with Syria in the foreseeable future," wrote Prof. Efraim Inbar of Bar-Ilan University. "The status quo is both sustainable and preferable."
The current border, a line of high ground where the Israeli army halted in the 1967 Six Day War after routing the Syrian army, was termed by Inbar "the best line of defense" on the Golan.
Since the two sides signed an American-brokered disengagement agreement in 1974 after the Yom Kippur War, the Golan has been the quietest of Israel’s borders. For this reason, many Israelis regarded Bashar Assad and his father Hafez as relatively benign.
As recently as six weeks ago, Jacky Hougy, Arab Affairs correspondent for Galei Zahal Radio, wrote an article defending the Syrian leader. "Assad is not a bitter enemy," he wrote. "He could even be called a convenient enemy. Israel has learned to get along with the Assad regime and it will be hard to live in peace in its absence. The stability of the regime in Damascus has been a cornerstone of Israel’s security for four decades."
Few in Israel, where Assad’s slaughter of his own people has evoked the same disgust as elsewhere, now share that once-prevailing view. Many regard the downfall of Assad’s regime at this point as inevitable.
There is, however, concern that jihadists, who are prominent in the opposition forces in Syria, may emerge as a dominant force in the next regime and end the long tranquility the Golan has enjoyed.
The only consolation Syria’s chaos offers Israelis is the presumed severing of Syria’s ties with Iran and Hezbollah.
"Iran has invested enormous efforts trying to secure Syria as a major partner," former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy told the Los Angeles Times. "If the regime in Damascus falls it is going to be a horrendous defeat for Iran."