The title of the article is rather misleading, but the article makes very clear, from the publication of the financial elite in britain, that the zionist leadership is in support of the counterrevolution in Syria.
There's little to add to this article. It says it all really. But just a quick few lines to say that the the pro-regime crowd on Syria across the world have tried to make out that Assad is somehow the zionist state's preferred option, and would not like the nato/Turkey/GCC-backed armed gangs in power in Syria. This is obviously been a total nonsense, and the quotes from leading persons of the zionist state below makes clear that although the zionist state might be a tad worried about a post-Assad Syria, they know it will be manageable and preferred to Assad in power.
The zionist state also knows very well that for it to come out in vocal and loud support for regime change in Syria wont help their allies in Syria for regime change. Nevertheless, the zionist state as well as the most aggressive sections of the usa political class have made it clear that they do support the regime-change forces in Syria.
Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm
Israel feels mixed emotions over Syria
(Financial Times, March 22 2012)
As the bloodshed and violence rages on in Syria, Israeli leaders are watching events across the border with a blend of worry, hope and frustration.
One fear is that the regime of Bashar al-Assad will try to draw Israel into the struggle, possibly as part of a last-ditch manoeuvre to divide and confuse the opposition. An obvious flashpoint is the Golan Heights, the Syrian territory occupied by Israel and one of the main points of contention between the two countries.
There is also profound concern that parts of Syria’s vast stockpile of arms, including long-range missiles as well as chemical and biological weapons, will end up in the hands of militant groups in Lebanon or elsewhere.
Speaking to the Israeli parliament this week, Ehud Barak, the defence minister, emphasised the short-term dangers posed by turmoil in Syria.
“We are monitoring events in Syria, with an eye on any efforts to transfer weapons that would alter the balance?.?.?.?Events in Syria increase the uncertainty and the need to prepare for any scenario,” he warned.
Looking further ahead, however, Israeli officials sound more confident. From their own intelligence assessments they have believed for some time that the current Syrian regime is ultimately heading for collapse, even if few dare to predict how long Mr Assad can still hang on.
What is more, there appears to be growing consensus among Israeli policy makers that regime change in Damascus will be good for the Jewish state – almost regardless of who takes over from the Syrian dictator.
“If you look at the balance, his departure is still preferable to all alternative scenarios,” says Itamar Rabinovich, Israel’s former chief negotiator with Syria and a former Israeli ambassador to Washington.
“A few years ago, the Israeli outlook would have been different. There was a feeling that this is the devil-we-know and it is better that he stays. But this changed in 2006 and 2007, under the impact of the war in Lebanon and the realisation that Syria was building up Hizbollah.”
According to Mr Rabinovich, a second crucial factor in Israel’s shifting opinion against the status quo in Syria was the 2007 discovery – and subsequent bombardment – of a Syrian nuclear facility, apparently supplied by North Korea.
The most important reason, however, is Iran: Tehran and Damascus are not only close allies, but Syria acts as a vital conduit for money, weapons and training for Iranian-backed militant groups operating against Israel.
Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, argues that the collapse of the Assad regime “would be a severe blow to Iran’s subversive activities in the region, given that Assad’s Syria serves as a forward base for [the] latter”. Writing on the opinion pages of the Jerusalem Post last week, Mr Lieberman added: “Such a development would also constitute a signal to the states in the region, which fear the strengthening and penetration of Iran.”
As his comments made clear, removing Syria from the Iranian axis is seen as an overwhelming Israeli interest – even if analysts and officials caution that Mr Assad’s successor is unlikely to seek warmer ties with Israel in the near term.
According to western officials familiar with Israeli government thinking, the preference for regime change in Syria extends all the way up to Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister.
Mixed into this blend of hope and concern, however, is a third Israeli sentiment: frustration at the country’s impotency in the face of wrenching change affecting the region. “Significant things are happening – and all we can do is sit and observe,” says one Israeli diplomat.
He points out that Israel remains deeply unpopular in most of the Arab world, making any kind of intervention – even mere statements of support – fraught with risk. As Mr Rabinovich, currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says: “The last thing the Syrian opposition needs is encouragement from Israel.”
Lurking at the back of Israeli minds is the issue of the Golan Heights, the Syrian territory captured by Israeli forces in 1967 that was later annexed to the state. Previous attempts at forging a peace deal between Israel and Syria have all revolved around – and frequently foundered on – the demand to hand back the occupied land.
It is a demand, however, that the current Israeli government seems unwilling to meet no matter who occupies the presidential palace in Damascus.
“Even in the event that a democratic Syria emerges from the current turmoil, Syria’s new regime would have to understand that any realistic option for a peace settlement [with Israel] would have to provide for a continuation in Israel’s effective control of the Golan”, Mr Lieberman said.