Your analysis does not appear to be consistent with your thesis that Obama is right not to have armed the rebels (a decision about which I might be inclined to agree with but about which I'm not really sure where I ultimately come out--given that there is a real genocide going on just 30 miles or so across the border from Jenin, where a fake genocide was alleged and condemned worldwide in the strongest terms just 10 years ago).

First, the article you cite to, like many other sources, reflects that the attack was aimed at preventing sophisticated weaponry from leaving Syria and falling into the hands of Hizbollah in Lebanon.  In short, it does not appear that Israel was attacking Syria to help the rebels.  Indeed, my hunch is that Israel's leadership would prefer a cold peace with  a dictator like Assad-- another tyrant excused by the west because he has a smart British wife who was an investment banker before she became the wife of a sadistic tyrannical son of a sadistic tyrant--as compared to a fundamentalist Islamic state that would need to demonize Israel and perhaps lob a bomb or two in order to excuse the chaos and turmoil that would surely ensue among rebel factions.once Assad is toppled.  Succinctly stated, states tend to like stability on their borders.

Second, Israel's attack appears to have been sanctioned by the very Obama whom you rightfully point out has declined to arm the Syrian rebels.

I like Obama as much as any unapologetic reflexive and boring Democrat, but I dare say that he has not shown a lick of vision when it comes to Syria.  That may because there's nothing we can do over there because it's one of those no-win situations but, truth be told, we are watching a genocide in Syria--and I'm not exactly proud of the fact that, at best, we are helpless to prevent this slaughter of thousands.