Doesn't the concept of "land for peace" already exist with Syria?

I think this term is a misnomer that has been bandied around too much in the press. Land for peace definitely was necessary with Egypt and will be with the Palestinians, but not with Jordan and definitely not with Syria. As a neutral person observing this conflict, Israel would lose a significant strategic territory while Syria's unstable dictatorship would continue to be secretly in bed with Hezbollah and Iran. Israel will keep the land and Syria can have the peace, thank you very much. After all, there have been no hostilities in thirty-five years.