Why is Israel overreacting?

I've taken this article from a newspaper article as it sums up everything perfectly.

Israel and the US fall into another trap of their own making

Israel's disproportionate military response to the abduction of one of its soldiers and the killing of two more by Palestinian militants nearly three weeks ago and to similar action by the Lebanese Hezbollah last week has generated a regional crisis.

The Bush Administration's public backing of such a response can only increase resentment of both Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds, further undermining Washington's efforts in the war on terrorism.

In part, Israel's overreaction may reflect the inexperience of its new Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, and Minister for Defence, Amir Peretz.

Yet Israel's operations appear to be designed to go well beyond punishing Palestinian militants and Hezbollah.

What started as two minor skirmishes on Israel's borders with Gaza (which despite Israel's formal withdrawal from the strip a year ago has, for all practical purposes, remained under its control) and Lebanon, have been blown out of all proportion. The Palestinian and Hezbollah kidnappings are nothing new in the region. Israel has kidnapped, jailed and killed Palestinians and Lebanese in the hundreds over the years in the name of self-defence and combating terrorism, as defined by Israel.

Why has Israel overreacted? It is using the abductions to achieve a wider goal. In the case of the Palestinians, it has been deeply troubled by the rise to power of the radical Islamist group Hamas through a democratic election early this year. Although Israel initially backed the formation of Hamas in the late 1980s as a counter to the secularist Palestine Liberation Organisation, which it then rejected as a terrorist organisation, it has increasingly found it expedient to do everything possible to prevent Hamas from governing and strengthening the forces of political Islam in the region.

Israel's ultimate objective seems to be to cause the demise of the Hamas Government, and a civil war between the PLO and Hamas supporters as a way out of negotiating a possible end to its occupation. In this, it has had the support of Bush, who has been unhappy with the outcome of the Palestinian process of democratisation.

Similarly, Israel has been increasingly uncomfortable with the growth of Hezbollah and the speed of Lebanon's recovery following its civil war and democratisation, especially since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 20 years of costly occupation.

Since its foundation in 1948 Israel's policy in historical Palestine has been to do whatever it takes to ensure that its Arab neighbours remain weak and divided. On this basis, while it has neutralised the Egyptian and Jordanian regimes through peace treaties and American influence, and the US has paralysed Iraq as a threat to the Jewish state, Israeli leadership has been keen to ensure favourable regime change in Syria and its regional ally, Iran, along with the destruction of the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

Israel is seeking to destroy not only Hezbollah, but also Lebanon. Its wider objective is to set back Lebanon's reconstruction by years so that it could never rival Israel politically and economically, as well as to undermine the chances of any US-Iran agreement over Iran's nuclear program.

Israel has embarked on a dangerous game. Syria and Iran will not leave Hezbollah in the lurch.
The situation that Israel has generated by its overreaction will leave both Israel and the US vulnerable to wider accusations of a Jewish-Christian conspiracy against Islam, and an upsurge in secular and religious radicalism among Arabs and Muslims.

This can only assist al-Qaeda and its supporters, and may well illustrate once again the immaturity of the Israeli leadership, and the naivety of the US in handling the Middle East conflict.

Taken from article written by Amin Saikal, July 17, 2006
Sunday Morning Herald, Australia