Har Dov and the Folly of Concessions

The idea of giving up Har Dov and the Shebaa Farms to Syria in exchange for “recognition” of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights should set off alarms across Israel. Militarily, it is reckless. Diplomatically, it is empty. Israel already exercises sovereignty over the Golan; no shaky Syrian promise will make us more secure. What such a deal would do is weaken Israel by stripping away a critical forward position that provides early warning, high ground, and a buffer against Hezbollah and Syria.

Har Dov is not expendable terrain. It is a strategic prize secured through blood and sacrifice. Military history is clear: once you give up high ground or buffer zones, you rarely get them back without unbearable cost. Israel learned this lesson the hard way. With Hezbollah bristling to the north and Iran digging deeper into Syria, we cannot afford to repeat past mistakes.

We also know that “land for peace” is more often an illusion than a solution. The Gaza disengagement in 2005 is the perfect case study. Israel expelled its own citizens and handed Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in hopes of peace. Instead, Hamas seized control, turned the Strip into a launching pad for war, and dragged Israel into round after round of bloodshed. The world quickly forgot Israel’s unprecedented concession, but Israelis live with its consequences every day.

That this proposal even surfaced reveals something deeper: Israel still struggles to see itself as the regional leader it truly is. Too often, our diplomacy is conducted from a position of insecurity, as if we must buy legitimacy through concessions. But Israel does not need recognition to be strong. It already is strong, militarily, technologically, economically, and diplomatically. Leadership means setting the terms of engagement, not trading away assets for worthless promises.

Conceding Har Dov would project weakness, invite aggression, and undermine deterrence. Allies would question our judgment, and enemies would sense opportunity. We have seen this movie before: endless talks with Assad about “land for peace” before Syria collapsed into civil war. Imagine if we had surrendered the Golan then. Today, Iranian and Hezbollah rockets would rain on the Galilee with impunity.

Equally dangerous is the fantasy that figures like Al-Julani can be moderated through negotiation. He is not a partner for compromise. He is an enemy whose hands are still stained with Druze blood. To believe otherwise is not diplomacy; it is delusion. History is clear: when Israel makes concessions to uncompromising enemies, the result is escalation, not peace.

Diplomacy is not about appeasing those sworn to destroy you. It is about pairing strength with clarity. And clarity here means one thing: enemies must be defeated, not indulged.

The deeper problem is Israel’s chronic lack of strategic vision. Leadership is not about chasing tactical deals or half-baked “land-for-recognition” formulas. It is about articulating a doctrine for the future: strengthening deterrence against Iran, deepening ties with pragmatic Arab states, and laying out what regional stability looks like on Israel’s terms.

The Har Dov debate is not really about a mountain. It is about whether Israel acts as a confident leader or a nervous appeaser. If we choose appeasement, we invite aggression. If we lead with strength, we set the foundation for stability.

Har Dov should never have been on the table. To give it up would not be a step toward peace. It would be a step toward the next war.