This is pragmatism.

Much as been said about all countries in the region. Most of them are trouble makers, sources of instability, terrorist support and so on... What about Israel? Is it a peace country or not? Recently violate Syrian airspace under false raison. Did Israel want peace? If yes, for what benefit? Israel has interest to perpetuate instability and fear among it's own citizen in order to stay unite.

I came to the same conclusions.

Like every despot, Assad won't endanger his regime because he aware it could be the end. Secondly, Assad wants to develop a good relations with Usa, and it won't happen as long as Bush is still on the white house. Thirdly, if we topple Assad, we might have the muslim brotherhood in our north border, so before attack, we should consider all the implications very carefully (as a matter of fact, we are). fourthly, Syria depends on Hizbullah to preserve it's interests in Lebanon, who thinks that the syrians exiles don't want the same thing?

but today, it is Iran who is pulling the strings of Assad-marionette. Yes, it was convenient to have a weak bungler like Assad as long as he was content to only oppress & exploit the Syrian population. But today, I think the situation has changed. Iran is encircling us on all sides - Hezbollah in S. Lebanon, Syria on our norther border, & Hamas to our south. Iranian influence will only grow. They are preparing for war. Our options are waiting until they feel strong enough to mount a coordinated attack or preemptively destroy them. If we lay waste to Syria & completely destroy it's military & it's infrastructure, it will disintegrate like Iraq. So what? As you admit, no successor regime will be better or more inclined to peace. Better to leave Syria in ruins & deal with the anarchy on our border.

I agree with most of what you said but don't forget that it is Assad himself who has been cultivating - at least publicly - the hatred for Israel. As for the Syrian opposition asking for maintaining "Syrian honor" after the daring and devastating Israel raid, I don't know of what honor you are talking about. Let them talk but talk to them too.

of course assad is the lesser of the two evils,israels real existential danger is on not in damascus,it sits right in jerusalem at the head of the cabinet table,and is acting as prime minister this criminally insane,traitorous,incompotent,pathetic wimp,is a much bigger danger to israel,then assad and all the terorrists combined

It is amazing how some believe that a regime change in Syria would mean a sure threat to Israel. What is more threatenin to israel than an unstable lebanon with a hezbollah armed to the teeth , than a Hamas that is controlling the palestianian scene, than islamic extremists in iraq who are preparing to annihilate the jews via baghdad. All this is the work of bashar el assad and his regime. A regime that allowed extremist iran a foothold in the arab world. As for the pretext that the syrian opposition is voicing its animosity towards israel , this is a common arab practice that is part of the Arabs empty talk. In jordan and egypt thousands say the same yet peace is there. bashar should go before he foolishly bring the iranian and sunni extremists to the backyard of israel if not into its mainland.

Assad is Ahmadinijads puppet he is being given billions of dollars worth of new weapons to modernise his army, Iran is paying Syrias debts to Russia so Assad needs Iran and the Iranian regime is not as weak as the Alwite one in Syria. I also dont think he would be in to much of a hurry to end this special friendship even if it got him the Golan he wants both. Israel then has 2 choices 1) Give Assad the Golan strenghen him and his regime and Israel looses territory and is seen to have given into Syrian demands of getting back the Golan which can only weaken Israels position on the palestian front. Doing a deal with Syria would look very much more like a sign of weakness which peace deals with Egypt and Jordan did not. Camp David the physical situation on the groiund was different and Jordan was just a formality not a deal. Syria has been demanding the Golan for 40 years now and has been uncompromising on those demands if Israel accepted Syrian demands it would be seen as a sign of weakness all over the arab world and they would milk it for everything they can get. Also unlike the Sinia Israel has 30 thousand+ jews living in the Golan, the earnings from Golan exports alone is worth millions. Give it up and it will damage the Israeli economy for over a decade because the money earned from the Golan would be lost, 30 thousand people need to be rehoused the 8000 from Gaza alone has cost the country hundreds of millions that would be 3 times, most of those Israelis would find themselves without jobs and need to claim benefit which will cost the state. Israeli taxpayers will be paying the price of peace for a decade or more. 2) Leave Assad to be groomed by Iran they have allready signed a joint millitary pact so that a war with one is the same as a war with the other. Does Assad want to loose that Iranian protection ... Syrias army is weak but will Iran make him feel safe? Assad is a no win situation .. you either strenghen him and his trouble making regime or you allow him to get closer to Iran. Probably the best thing to do for now is dont act like Mr nice guy and jump whenever the P word is mentioned, we know the outcome before we even walk into the room and thats Assad will get the Golan he will not settle for anything less and giving it to him will make Israel look weak to the rest of the arab world so Olmert stop dreaming about nobel prizes and say no deals that invole giving up the Golan. It will at least look like when Israel says something Israel means it and that can be translated to the millitary front as well say we wont accept any messing around and every now and again have a fly into Syrian airspace remind Assad who is in charge even if he makes some new friends its him who is in range of superior Israeli tanks and jets not Iran. For this to work though Israels politicians must chage tactics Israel and the US need to change the rules of the game land for peace doesnt mean you get the entire Golan it means you can have a small token the rest officialy goes to Israel take it or leave it. The land for peace ideas that Israel has been working by for decades has failed not lets think like the arabs and say what we mean.. the current tactics are not seen as peacemaking its seen as surrender .. you won the battle ( 1967 ) but we won the war ( land ) Israel is the big boy in the region and it needs to use that edge not sit around waiting for the weaker enemies to come along and make demands and Israel then agreed to pay them.

He's torn between 2 lovers and feeling like a fool. On one side he has oil-rich Arab Gulf states and on the other side the Great Satan Iran which is to be nuke powered soon. If he is to go Iran way, which he had sign a treaty he is supposed to get help when attacked. But that did not materialize in the recent Israel air raid and right now he's feeling being cheated. To make things worst, And he isn't getting much support @ home either.

peace will be achieved by destroying the alawite regime in syria and hizbullah. otherway terror will stay in the middle east for another 50 years.

Syria, considered by the U.S. to be a terrorist state and a charter member of the 'axis of evil,' along with North Korea and Iran, has a a friend north of the border. On Saturday, the Syrian government announced that Lune Energy, a Canadian oil exploration firm, would help it seek oil in northern Syria's desert areas, where surveys have said substantial deposits may exist. According to the deal, the Syrian government and local oil refiners will take a portion of the oil, with the rest going to the Canadian company. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/133615 Please write to PM Stephen Harper: His own webpage: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/contact.asp?featureId=10 His e-mail address: pm@pm.gc.ca

You just made it apparent you have never been in war. How on earth do you want to "deal" with the anarchy on the other side of the border? We can't even stop the sudanees refugees coming from Egypt, and they are only a few thousand. There are currently about 2 million iraqis in Syria already plus add a few more million syrians running toward Israel. You go ahead and separate the terrorists from the real refugees. Great idea, that would really be the end.

o israels.. why should you insult a head of a state while you dont like to hear your heads insulted.. i dont care but That man Mr bashar is a very brave man with a great honor towards his people and in one DAY no doubt he will liberate the Golan Hieghts...

First, we are talking about the least bad option. The question is what is more to our benefit - Assad or no Assad. I see it in a different light - a Syrian state or dismantling the Syrian state. So, I was not just talking about regime change. Since I agree totally that any new regime in Syria would be hostile to us, simple regime change would do us little good. And, Syria would remain a puppet of Iran regardless. Syrian refugees would not run to Israel - they might flee to Lebanon, especially the Christians. I think Syria would become like Lebanon during the last civil war - competing warlords, some ethnic, some Islamic crazies, some religiously based. Perhaps Syrian Kurds would join with their Iraqi counterparts. Perhaps Turkey would be interested in a chunk of Syria. We might like the rest of the Golan. Or we could support a Druse autonomous region in the Golan. Maybe Lebanon would like some of Syria as well - that would be ironic. We would still have trouble with Iranian support of some groups particularly Assad's Alawite minority unless they are all murdered by Sunni extremists. There might be some terrorist activity on the Golan as well. But we would not have a central Syrian gov't with an army to contend with. There would be no threat of a large scale war. We would destroy their entire military, all arms manufacture, missiles, & as much infrastructure as possible. But don't worry - we won't do it. Our current political elite doesn't even have the balls to handle Gaza.

Yes, much of Syria was Jewish land in ancient times, before the land was taken by the goyim. Time for the Muslims to give back stolen land. There will never be peace until Damascus is Jewish once again.

Strange that I find your analysis of the reasons to support Bashar in power, but your conclusions are so contrary to your analysis. Of course the survival of the Alawite regime is important to Israel. Particularly in light of the obvious alternatives: an Iranian-inspired military junta, or a fundamentalist and likely jihadist regime supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Can anyone think of a more dangerous border for Israel? And I'm sure you also would agree with this. How can you reconcile the need for a “quiet” Syria apparently gleefully anticipate that Bashar and his Alawi regime will survive the traps you describe, and which are awaiting him in the not distant future? How will that promote a quiet and static north; how do you conclude the regime can even survive? The only way to maintain Assad and the Alawis is more obvious and less devious than your conclusions which, I suspect, fall into the category of "have your cake and eat it too," an impossibility: a weak Syrian regime and Israel happily retaining the Golan? Sure! 'fraid we can't have it both ways. Either we explore ways of concluding the almost competed Syrian peace process terminated in 2000 by Barak, thereby strengthening Assad and his regime, moving Iran (whom he declares he also wants out of Syrian military and politics) from Israel's northern border, opening commerce and tourism, etc. between the two countries; or we contribute to Assad's international isolation, contribute to his dependency on Iranian military and diplomatic support, and maintain Israeli troops and civilians on alert along the north, indefinitely until one day, a day certain to eventually arrive, Israel will anyway surrender the Golan. Territory or peace? Now, or later with countless loss of life and treasure, and years of threat and war?