Mr. Dalloul is in La La Land when he says that:
“The intention has always been to prevent a democracy emerging in Damascus, as it might be more of a threat to Israel than the laughable “axis of evil” regime of Bashar Al-Assad, which poses no threat to the occupation state, and never has. The US wants the Arab states around Israel to remain weak and divided and, most of all, dependent on Washington.”
The fact was that the US did not oppose a democracy arising in Syria. It chose not to go to war in another Arab state when Assad’s armed forces crossed President’s Obama’s announced red lines. Obama chose to not remove Assad in exchange for Syria surrendering its chemical weapon caches, which they only did in part. This American decision was part of an ongoing desire to step back or disengage at least partially from wars in the middle east and Afghanistan. It had nothing to do with preventing anti-Assad forces from succeeding and establishing a democracy.
Washington has not wanted weak Arab allies. It has poured billions of dollars into countries like Egypt and Jordan to strengthen them. It has sold billions of dollars of weapons to Gulf state allies of the United States to keep them strong.
Whether a democratic Syrian state would be more toxic to Israel than Assad’s Syria is no more than an assumption by Mr. Dalloul. If Isis and Al-Qaeda controlled the democratic government, then yes it could have been a threat to Israel. If Kurdish parties and other parties which might seek peace with Israeli controlled the government then Syria’s democratic government would have made peace with Israel and had sought its own normalization agreement. This is all speculation.
What is not speculation is that Assad’s government permits Hezbollah and Iran to threaten Israel from Syria. These are very serious threats.