I could understand why Israel does  nothing while Egypt is in the throws of its domestic unrest. Egypt is the center of gravity in the Arab world, an US ally (for how much longer is an open question), and has a huge population.

 

Syria is another matter entirely: it has a much smaller population, is not a US/Western ally, has supported anti-Israel groups for decades and is a client-state of the Iranian mullah-ocracy. Why not take this opportunity to destroy the heavy weapons, air power, and NBC program of that odious state. This may buy Israel a chance at some goodwill from the insurgency as well as mitigating the threat of the next Syrian government should it be actively hostile to Israel as well as undermining Iranian interference in the region. 

Nothing, I repeat NOTHING Israel does in the mid-east will ever change the basic religious hatred directed at them, all Israeli involvement would do would be to have the exact opposite effect that it was intended to - frankly Israel is best staying out of it unless it is forced to intervene by escalation or chemical weapons - same applies to everyone else too - in Syria especially there seems to be very little understanding of what levels of support Assad actually and the constituent elements of the rebellion - while the idea of weakening Iran's power base (and Hezbollah's backer) by aiding Assad's overthrow is obviously attractive there is a greater degree of uncertainty even than in Libya/Egypt of what will replace him and a far bigger issue of having to intervene in a fairly major way to secure WMD's.

 

A terrible situation all-around, frankly.

 

R 

 As you can see, this is a wicked problem for Israel. They have to get in and destroy or neutralize the weapons before they can be captured and diverted to al-Qaeda, but not so early that they leave Assad on the throne.

I agree that due to Arab hostility to Israel means little long term good will would be generated by an Israeli attack on Assad's military. However, it still seems to make sense to destroy as much as possible of Syria's heavy weapons, air power, and NBC capability. I feel that a post-Assad populist regime is likely to be extremely hostile to Israel if for no other reason to rally popular support for itself.

 

The problem (if Assad collapses) is a major one - it's no minor task to take over, secure and remove hundreds of tonnes of Chemical ordnance - bombing the sites wouldn't be adequate to ensure the destruction of all weapons and would also release the toxins, depending on their proximity to built-up areas it could be a disaster. So, a large boots-on-the-ground military operation and it'll probably be undertaken by the US. 

 

A post Assad regime might very well be as you describe, but it will most-certainly also be hostile to Hezbollah, which also makes it far harder or impossible for Iran to support them as it has previously, not that Hezbollah will be their main concern; if Assad falls the next mass uprising in the region will probably be in Iran. 

 

R