You should read the articles you post more carefully:
"There are obvious reasons that Israelis would like to rid the region of a man who trains terrorists and pays blood money to the families of suicide bombers. But the deeper explanation, says Stephen P. Cohen, an analyst with the Israel Policy Forum, is a profound despair over the bloody dead-end in which Israeli-Palestinian politics sit. A conquest of Iraq offers the prospect that the United States intends to take the region in hand. It is, to many Israelis, the only hope of change for the better.
In his speech last week to the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush for the first time seemed to embrace this thankless responsibility. He declared that success in Iraq could break the impasse and move Israel and the Palestinians toward the obvious two-state solution. He underscored this as "my personal commitment."
The speech may have been a sop to European opinion, but a successful war would offer Bush a precious opportunity. A lot of people wish that he had engaged the Palestinian question intensively and earlier, if only to gain some credibility with the Arabs prior to disarming Saddam. But later would still be better than never."