Unlike some of the other uprisings and regime changes in the Middle East, Israel is rather comfortable with the prospect of regime change in Syria. Some Israeli officials reject concerns about an Islamist takeover post-Assad or increased instability close to their borders. A region free of the Shiite Assad regime would undercut two of Israel’s primary enemies: Hezbollah and Iran.
As Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon said recently, Assad’s ouster could be good for Israel by creating “a fissure in the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut-Hamas axis of evil”.
The Israelis would much rather have al-Assad (who's never done anything against them) than what would replace him, which certainly would be a Sunni Islamic government that's less friendly to Israel.
Read John Myhill's article about the Alawites and Israel at http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7990.
Problem is, Syria is 99% Muslim and from my perspective it looks like Assad is about the most pro-Israel leader that Israel could ever hope to have in Syria.
It's not 99% Muslim. It's 9-10% Christian (there are Christian villages where people still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus). Another 10-15% are Alawite and Drize, who get lumped in with Muslims but are not, in fact, Muslim.
Regime change in Syria will weaken Iran's imperial influence, but will strengthen Turkey. Turkey is also an enemy of Israel, and borders Syria – thus Turkey could send in troops. I don't see how that helps Israel all that much. Israel's best interest is to keep Syria preoccupied in a civil war for years and years. If they are stuck in a slow grinding war of attrition they can't threaten Israel much, and that forces Iran to waste resources bucking up its ally.
Time for a civil war in Israel that lasts for years as well.
How about regime change in Israel? Netanyahu and his far-right cronies are the real danger to world peace.