Some Israeli commentators are openly recognising that the current regime in Damascus is the best one they can hope for, writes Saleh Al-Naami It was easy to notice the surprise of the news anchor of the morning news show on Israeli Radio when retired General Effi Eitam, the former head of the National Religious Party and former housing minister, was concerned about the overthrow of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Eitam is not only an extreme rightwing politician in Israel but lives in the settlement of Katzrin located on the Syrian Golan Heights, which Israel occupied in 1967. Eitam was definitive in his comments on the unrest currently sweeping across Syria. "The incumbent regime in Syria is the best one for Israel," he stated, adding that despite the hostile positions of the Syrian regime towards Israel it is better than other alternatives that could replace it if it fell. Eitam surprised listeners when he said that he does not believe that the incumbent regime in Syria is "serious" about recovering the Golan Heights. He attempted a political explanation of his theory, stating: "The problem with the incumbent regime in Syria is that its legitimacy relies on the support of the minority religious Alawite group, which is why it is always trying to maintain the semblance of conflict with Israel to justify its continuation in power. Accordingly, this regime is not interested in recovering the Golan through political settlement because it believes that reaching a political settlement would once again open up debate about the legitimacy of the ruling regime, and raise questions about the future rule of the minority Alawites over the Sunni majority." While General Etam's statements were a surprise because in the past he had always attacked the incumbent Syrian regime, many Israelis in power believe that keeping the current regime in Syria in place is the best option for Israel. Although Minister of Education Gideon Saar rejects Israeli withdrawal from the Golan and demands increased settlement building there by the ruling Likud government, he said that the most important factor which makes him believe in the necessity of keeping the Syrian regime in power is the absolute calm on the Syrian-Israeli border since the end of the 1973 War. "Practical experience has demonstrated that the Syrians are the most committed to ceasefire agreements and a truce," he said. "The Syrians have abided by and fulfilled their promises regarding securing the shared border, and it is no wonder that this calm has allowed an increase in Jewish settlements in the Golan Heights causing their number to multiply several times over more than 30 years." State Minister retired General Yossi Peled, who formerly served as the head of the Israeli Army's Northern Command, said that the Syrian regime under Hafez Al-Assad and his son Bashar did not exert any real efforts to change the military balance of power, which is to the advantage of Israel. Peled said that the Syrian army is ill- equipped for today's wars and in no way can stand up to a conflict with Israel. He noted that the balance of power did not tip during the past four decades except to the advantage of Israel. Israeli commentator Amnon Abramovich believes that the biggest "asset" of the Syrian regime is its keen interest not to change the current rules of the game between the two sides, citing that Syria did not attempt during the past three decades to challenge Israel or respond to many instigations by Tel Aviv. "Syria has been the most responsive to Israel's policy of deterrence," stated Abramovich. "We attacked a nuclear installation in northern Syria in December 2006, killed Imad Mughniyeh, the leader of the armed wing of Hizbullah, in the heart of Damascus, and also targeted locations of Palestinian factions inside Syria without the Syrian regime under Al-Assad the father or the son daring to respond." He warned that there is no guarantee that an alternate regime would do the same. Amos Harel, political commentator at Haaretz newspaper, disagrees. "We should not shed a single tear if Al-Assad's regime is toppled," Harel declared, referencing the alliance between Syria, Hizbullah and Iran, and allowing the leaders of Palestinian groups to remain in Syrian. "The Syrian regime permits arms supplies to Hizbullah, gives Iran a foothold in the region, and supports undermining Israel strategic interests." He noted that despite Israel's superior military capabilities, the Syrian regime invested in accumulating missiles that could strike any location inside Israel, making Syria "dangerous" under the regime of Al-Assad. Yaron Friedman, political science professor at Al-Tachyon Academy, rejects Harel's position and believes that although there is a possibility that a new regime in Syria may abandon its alliance with Iran, it would cosy up to Hamas. In his analysis published on the Hebrew website of Yediot Aharonot, Friedman asserted that all post- Assad regime scenarios confirm that the Muslim Brotherhood would greatly influence events in Syria. "This group, without a doubt, will extend its support to Hamas which descends from the same school of thought," he said. Ben Kasbet, a senior commentator at Maariv newspaper, strongly condemned those calling for democratising the Arab world. Kasbet said that contrary to what is being propagated, democratic change in the Arab world does not serve the interests of Israel since it is certain to usher in regimes that are more hostile towards Israel. He focussed on those within the US who are demanding support for the people of Syria to overthrow Assad's regime. "With all due respect to those who call for democracy, what awaits us here is confrontation with religious and secular forces who genuinely express the opinion of the Syrian people," Kasbet wrote. "And we know what that is. It is the same as overall Arab public opinion; the Arab people reject our existence and support resistance against us. Accordingly, any talk of a regime that truly represents the sentiment of the Syrian people would necessitate ushering in a regime that is hostile to Israel." Kasbet rejected the notion that Arab secularists would be less hostile towards Israel than Islamists, emphasising that both would be hostile and would reflect the demands of Arab public opinion. Some believe what is taking place in Syria, and has already occurred in Tunisia and Egypt, demonstrates that agreements should not be concluded with dictatorships. Uri Hunter, an Israeli professor of Oriental Studies at Shomron College, argued that agreements with dictatorial regimes in the Arab world are "not worth the paper they are written on", because these treaties that can be easily abandoned once the regime changes. "In retrospect, it appears that Israeli prime ministers who refused to sign an agreement with the Alawite regime in Syria were responsible," Hunter asserted. "While the politicians who were enthusiastic to reach settlement with Syria could have gravely harmed Israeli interests." What makes developments in Syria so dangerous, according to many Israeli politicians, is that they are taking place simultaneously with movements which could result in changing the ruling system in Jordan -- that everyone in Tel Aviv agrees is Israel's most "trusted" strategic ally in the region. Israelis fear that changing regimes in Jordan and Syria after Egypt could result in what Tel Aviv is calling a "Sunni ring" which would enhance the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on events in the region. Decision makers in Tel Aviv are quietly holding their breath on what is taking place in Syria, in the hope that the regional environment will not change in a way that would compound the burdens already bearing down on the intelligence and military agencies of the Zionist state. The rulers of Israel are saying: irrespective of the type of relationship with the incumbent Syrian regime, Israel has so far been able to manage this relation in a way that serves Israeli interests. There are no guarantees that Tel Aviv would be able to maintain this success if the rulers in Damascus change.
