…
To hear Rabinovich
tell it, Israel's policy toward the Syrian revolt would make Hamlet
proud. "The policy is very passive," he says. "When you
don't have great choices, you don't really push hard for any of them...I would
say it is ambivalent, with a slight preference to see [Assad] go than to see
him stay."
…
IR: My argument is that there was
ambivalence with regards to Bashar al-Assad -- we just found out recently that
even Netanyahu indirectly negotiated with
him in 2011, through the State Department. But after the 2006 war, following
the damage that Israel sustained in Lebanon [at the hands of Assad's ally
Hezbollah], and the discovery in
2007 of the North Korean nuclear reactor [in northeastern Syria], I think that
changed Israeli attitudes.
In 2005, famously, when George W. Bush told Ariel Sharon that he
would be very happy to get rid of Bashar al-Assad, Sharon said, "he's the
devil we know." That was a clear articulation of a perspective that says:
He's a devil, but the alternative may be some form of Islamist government.
I think that changed. Israel would like to see him go because it
would be a blow to Iran. His staying on -- the anarchy becoming more expensive,
more and more jihadist elements penetrating into Syria -- I think it's seen by
Israel as a negative trend. Therefore, I think on balance, though not in an
overwhelming way, Israel would prefer to see him go.
…
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/12/what_israel_really_thinks_about_the_syrian_uprising
Understandable Israel attitude Syria to protect their
position but Syrian uprising is due
course… Yes, Iranian will rise again too…
