The widely accepted “land for peace” paradigm for peace with Syria entails great military risks and may invite aggression against Israel, while the potential political dividends of a peace treaty are limited. Moreover, the status quo, based on a defensible border, is both sustainable and preferable to any alternative. Even without taking into consideration current political volatility in the region, retaining the Golan Heights is more important than a peace treaty. Therefore, Israel should adopt a new paradigm for relations with Syria–a “peace for peace” formula, even if peace is unlikely to emerge any time soon. INTRODUCTION Ever sinceSyria’s loss of the Golan Heights toIsraelin the June 1967 War, this strategic area has been a bone of contention between the two states. Immediately after the war,Israeloffered to withdraw from theGolan Heightsin exchange for a peace treaty but was rebuffed. Subsequently,Israelbegan to establish a civilian presence, and in December 1981 decided to ext...