The Golan also is the major water source for Israel.
Surrendering it would give an implacable Nazi enemy not only the military advantage over all of northern Israel, but also allow the cutting off of a vital source of water.
I am most upset with the former IDF General's choice of terminology; using the words of a "business transaction" to describe the aftermath, rather than military terminology.
If Israel "could manage" without the Golan, then it stands to reason that Israel is currently "managing much better" with the Golan.