LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
August 16/2006

 Latest New from the Daily Star sources for August 16/06
EU countries lead way as composition of expanded UNIFIL starts to take shape
Cabinet members spar over proposed weapons compromise
Assad cheers Hizbullah victory, takes swipe at March 14 Forces
Displaced stream back to South - with army to follow
Lebanon faces huge obstacles to recovery and reconstruction
Fneish scrambles to secure crucial fuel as power plants run on fumes
Food aid for displaced turns up in retail stores
Sad task of searching the rubble begins
All Lebanon wants from Syria is a deed to the Shebaa Farms
Environmentalists demand urgent clean-up of oil spill
Activists pedal for peace as part of novel political rally in Beirut
Mobile phones play key role in Lebanon war
Lebanon, a warning against the use of brute force-By Daoud Kuttab
A foretaste of larger furies to come -By Rami G. Khouri
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for August 16/06
Opportunity and Poisonous Chalice-By: Ghassan Charbel-Al Hayat 16/08/06
Neutrality: Lebanon's Salvation in the Long-Run.By: Hazem Saghieh-Al Hayat 16/08/06
The Most Urgent Task.By: Abdullah Iskandar.AlHayat 16/08/06
Iran and Syria praise Hezbollah mock U.S-AP
U.K. police arrest new suspect in terror plot-AP
Hizbullah likely to retain its weapons in s. Lebanon-Jerusalem Post - Israel
US Takes Optimistic View of Lebanon-Guardian Unlimited - UK
Israel's hollow victory in Lebanon-International Herald Tribune - France
Lebanon: thousands of displaced returning home-Reuters
Lebanon Truce Holds; Hezbollah Disarmament Plan Is Discussed-Bloomberg
Israeli Troops Leave South Lebanon-CBS News
Bashar Assad: Syria Prepared For War With Israel-Mediafax
US: Cease-fire a setback for Iran, Syria-Jerusalem Post - Israel
Bush criticises Syria and Iran as Hezbollah 'sponsors'-ABC Online
Lebanon/Israel: civilians pay the price of conflict-Reuters
Cease-fire holding in Lebanon-International Herald Tribune
Nasrallah Is Already Carving out Lebanon's Future-DEBKA file
Arab Media Accuses Iran and Syria of Direct Involvement in Lebanon MEMRI
An Old Non-Solution-National Review Online Blogs
Lebanese find destruction back home -Ap
French officers, UN experts plan for Lebanon force-Reuters
Red Cross issues Lebanon warning-BBC News
Both sides declare victory in Lebanon war-Globe and Mail
Returning to their devastated homes-Guardian Unlimited
Bush Says No Victory for Hezbollah-Voice of America
US Calls Lebanon Peace Deal Strategic Setback for Iran, Syria-Voice of America
Syria's Assad blasts US plans for Mideast-ABC News
Syria Justifies Hezbollah Attacks-The Conservative Voice
Peretz: Prepare for negotiations with Syria-Ynetnews
Weapons trail leads to Syria and Iran-The Australian

Hezbollah's Political Blitzkrieg
By: Dr.Walid Phares
August 14, 2006
Many in the media and sectors within public opinion are wondering why the U.S. isn't able to get a mild French draft of a UN resolution passed quickly via the UN Security Council? Others are stunned to watch Lebanon's Prime Minister, Fuad Seniora, crying in front of the Arab League meeting and calling for the rejection of a strong Multinational Force, caving in to Hezbollah. Commentators are barely able to decipher why is it that the so-called allies of the U.S. in the War on Terror Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar  are pushing for Israeli withdrawal, rejecting the multinational force while maintaining the status quo for Hezbollah.
It sounds as if the year 2005-2006 was full of mirages: Cedars Revolution in Lebanon, free elections, and formation of an anti-Syrian Government backed by the son of the slain PM of Lebanon, Saad Hariri. Qu pasa? Who is calling the shots now? Israel is pounding southern Lebanon and many bridges into rubble, but Hezbollah is on a terror blitzkrieg, wrecking political havoc inside Lebanon and in the region. Israel is scientifically winning the military battle and Hezbollah is crumbling the political future of the war anyway.
Back in April of 2005, while Assad was pulling its hardware back into Syria and the free world was celebrating the very colorful Cedars Revolution in Beirut, Hezbollah's counteroffensive was being designed as follows:
Absorb the fury of the Lebanese masses but kill their political project
Construct the conditions for non-disarmament of the militias
Penetrate the post Syrian Government and its institutions
Solidify the bridges to Iran and Syria
Begin the terrorizing of the new Government
Sink UNSCR 1559; and, at the timing of Nasrallah, trigger a war with Israel for the ground to shift back to Hezbollah
Finally, contain Israel's reactions and crumble the Lebanese government genius Ahmedinijad-Assad-Nasrallah grand plan: Unfortunately invisible to the Western decisions makers for a whole year.
And here comes the Hezbollah Blitzkrieg:
A. Luring the Lebanese politicians of the Cedars Revolution into stopping the demonstrations short of toppling pro-Syrian Emile Lahoud. Hence having Lahoud's intelligence services protecting the activities of the "axis" (Hezbollah, Syrians, Iranians, others) in Lebanon. Keeping Lahoud in place secured a pressure on the Lebanese Army, since the President is the "commander in chief."
First target achieved by July. Brilliant.
B. Running in the legislative elections "before" being disarmed, and with 300 million dollars to spend on voters, Hezbollah and its Amal allies secure 30 members of Parliament. That's the equivalent of the Taliban running for elections when they were in power, but on a provincial scale.
Results: More Hezbollah MPs enter the new Parliament, supposed to be anti-Syrian. And incredibly (never seen in any other country), while the resistance to Syria get a comfortable majority in the assembly - 70 percent), it ends up bringing back pro-Syrian Nabih Berri as a speaker: Allah knows how this so-called majority shot itself in the foot twice in one month with maintaining Lahoud and Berri in place.
Second Hezbollah target achieved by early July.
C. Outmaneuvering the Seniora Cabinet by threatening to isolate the Shia from the Government if the Hezbollah bloc doesn't obtain four ministers. A bloc that can veto all decisions on the Lebanese Army deployment and on the disarming of militias. A high school analyst realizes that Hezbollah has just grabbed the Cabinet capacity of disarming it!
Objective secured by August 2005.
D. Between July and December 2005, the "axis" terror squads assassinate Cedars Revolution leaders who didn't accept the Hezbollah influence in the Lebanese government, among them: Samir Qassir, George Hawi, and particularly Gebran Tueni, the leading young figure of the Revolution. Other journalists and cadres were targets of plots, shootings and threats including May Chidiac.
Cedars Revolution beheaded by end of the year.
E. By March 2006, Hassan Nasrallah signs an "agreement of understanding" with General Michel Aoun, ex anti-Syrian politician, separating his movement from the pro-Government parties and splitting the Christian community in two camps. The opposition to Hezbollah was reduced to shambles. Druze leader Walid Jumblat and a few Christian MPs are still firing against Syria and gently against Hezbollah. Nasrallah accompanies his victorious offensives with Iranian funding of many socioeconomic projects outside the traditional Shiite strongholds.
F. By April 2006, Hezbollah's dual blitz moves faster, as the government is almost paralyzed on the implementation of UNSCR 1559. On the one hand, Nasrallah and his ally Nabih Berri induce the remnants of the anti-Syrian politicians to sit down around a "dialogue table" to discuss the "future of Lebanon" away from street demonstrations. In other words, drop off the Cedars Revolution, i.e. what made you visible to the international community and let us waste your time in Byzantine discussions.
Hezbollah gained three more precious months.
G. Meanwhile, through the very open Lebanese Syrian borders, Iran sent all the weapons systems needed by Hezbollah to wage the "deflection war" against Israel.
Nasrallah's Plan A was a limited war against Israel followed by a revolt against the Seniora government and its takeover. Israel made it into a longer war. So, Hezbollah's Plan B is a longer resistance against whatever Israel is cooking, with still a near future control of the Government. Now the Jihadi blitz is provoking regional and international results, or about to.
Hezbollah threatens the Seniora Government of disintegration if it doesn't abide by its plan. Nasrallah and al Manar speaks of open battle till the end. But the real plan of the Iranian-Syrian axis is in fact to use the Seniora Government as a hostage. The seven-point plan of the Lebanese cabinet has been approved, some say suggested by Hezbollah: No deterring-MNF, no chapter 7, no Security Council resolution that would disarm the militia, etc.
Seniora cries in front of the Arabs, Nasrallah calmly controls the situation and most Lebanese politicians have become irrelevant in the equation.
The mostly Sunni Arab government hears the Sunni Prime Minister of Lebanon pleading for his 7 points (Hezbollah recipe to survive and strike back) and rushes to Manhattan to convince the U.S. and France into watering down the draft.
Ironically, the bombed-into-rubble Nasrallah is shelling the UN Security Council with "Arab diplomats." He knows all too well that, in the absence of the Cedars Revolution (abandoned by its politicians but still breathing), he is winning the political offensive.
Since no one is opposing his agenda in Lebanon and as his services have almost controlled the "news rooms" of most Lebanese media; and as we learn progressively that the Hezbollah agencies have most messages of foreign correspondents practically under control, while Jihadi and oil influence is widespread throughout the contractors of the news agencies worldwide, Nasrallah is in business. His blitzkrieg is pushing forward politically, for now.
With UNSCR 1701 voted, Hezbollah's options have been reduced to two.
For the resolution, a salad bowl of measures in all directions, relies almost completely on the Lebanese Government's determination to seize back control of the country with UN support.
Nasrallah will have to fight the resolution upfront or seize the control of the Lebanese Government, so that he would paralyze the implementation of the resolution. My instinct tells me he is going to try to do both: control the government and continue the war.
**Dr. Phares is a visiting fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels and a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is Future Jihad, and he was the author of the memo that introduced UNSCR 1559 in 2004 and of one of the drafts of UNSCR 1701 of 2006. He is a Terrorism analyst with MSNBC.
Bio
Walid Phares holds degrees in law and political science from Saint Joseph University and the Lebanese University in Beirut, a Masters in international law from the Universite de Lyons in France and a Ph.D. in international relations and strategic studies from the University of Miami. He has taught and lectured at numerous universities worldwide, practiced law in Beirut, and served as publisher of Sawt el-Mashreq and Mashrek International. He taught Middle East political issues, ethnic and religious conflict, and comparative politics at Florida Atlantic University. Dr. Phares has written seven books on the Middle East and published hundreds of articles in newspapers and scholarly publications such as Global Affairs, Middle East Quarterly, and Journal of South Asian and Middle East Studies. He has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, Fox News, BBC, al Jazeera, al Hurra, al Arabiya as well as on radio broadcasts. Aside from serving on the boards of several national and international think tanks and human rights associations, Dr. Phares has testified before the US Senate Subcommittee on the Middle East and South East Asia and regularly conducts congressional and State Department briefings.ove...

THE MEL GIBSON SCHOOL OF DIPLOMACY
By David Matas
Ottawa Citizen, August 14, 2006
Hezbollah's unprovoked raid on Israel last month had the same effect on the United Nations as alcohol had on Mel Gibson -- prompting them both to utter what they truly think about the Jewish people. Mr. Gibson, his tongue loosened by alcohol, told the arresting policeman that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." The UN takes a similar stance on wars in the Middle East. The main difference is that the UN puts the blame on Jews one war at a time.
Since Hezbollah and Hamas began their recent attacks, various components of the UN have trampled over each other with declarations against the Jewish state. The new UN Human Rights Council, supposedly established to overcome the politicization that had undermined its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, turned out to be more anti-Zionist than the commission.
The council, at its very first meeting in June, condemned Israel alone and no other country. For the council, Israel was the world's only human rights violator. It then held a special session in early July in which its only item of business was condemning Israel. At that session, the council denied non-governmental organizations wanting to defend the Jewish state any opportunity to speak.
Late last week, we were witness to yet another special emergency session, convened at the urging of the Organization of the Islamic Conference for the express purpose of condemning Israel. All the while, the council has ignored Hezbollah's deliberate targeting of Israel's civilians.
In late July the UN special rapporteurs on internally displaced, food, housing, education, freedom of _expression and health expressed concern over humanitarian threats to the civilian population as a result of the current conflict. A single sentence was devoted to the consequences of Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilian populations, yet two paragraphs went to the consequences in Lebanon of the Israeli response. The words "terrorism" and "Hezbollah" were not used. There was no reference to Hezbollah's well-documented use of civilians as shields.
The United Nations Committee against Racial Discrimination held a special session on the humanitarian situation in Lebanon, not something that would seem to be within its mandate. The topic was Lebanon only and not Israel. The Brazilian, Pakistani and South African members of the committee all accused Israel of anti-Arab racism for responding to the Hezbollah attacks in the manner which Israel did. No one criticized Hezbollah for its anti-Jewish propaganda. Instead, the Egyptian committee member defended Hezbollah as a resistance movement fighting foreign occupation, despite the fact there is no occupation: Israel withdrew from Lebanon years ago and the UN itself approved the new border.
Canadians ought to be particularly disappointed with Louise Arbour, a distinguished former Canadian judge and now the UN's high commissioner for Human Rights, who regrettably fell victim to the anti-Zionist virus ravaging the UN. She suggested that the Israeli leadership may be guilty of war crimes. She said, "the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable" and such bombardment "could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command or control."
In truth, the killing of innocent civilians in wartime, though always regrettable, always tragic, is not always a war crime. More, the same treaty also prohibits the use of civilians as shields, a tactic in which Hezbollah specializes. It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the Lebanese casualties are civilian or military since Hezbollah fighters, contrary to international law, do not wear uniforms and they feign civilian status.
In responding to Hezbollah aggression, Israel seeks to destroy rocket launching sites, munitions stocks and the infrastructure for importing rearmaments from Iran and Syria. Those who complain of disproportionality offer Israel no suggestions on how it should defend itself. They either don't care about Israel's defence, or they dispute Israel's right to self-defence.
There are many people so shaken by Mr. Gibson's outburst that they would boycott his movies. But when the UN self-destructs in anti-Jewish scapegoating, we've lost something more important. We've lost hope that the UN can realize the ideals for which it stands.
Israel will survive the assault of Hezbollah, but it's unclear whether the UN's credibility will. Hezbollah and Hamas have blown that credibility out of the Alps, destroying our faith in the new Human Rights Council, along with six of the supposedly independent UN experts, the committee ostensibly mandated to address issues of racism. From these attacks, we may well ask whether the UN will ever recover.
***David Matas is a Winnipeg lawyer and senior counsel to B'nai Brith Canada. He is the author of Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism.

Opportunity and Poisonous Chalice
Ghassan Charbel Al-Hayat - 15/08/06//
George Bush's statement yesterday that Hezbollah, Iran and Syria were responsible for starting "an unwanted war" in the region helps one read into Resolution 1701, which was unanimously passed by the Security Council. From the very beginning, Washington placed the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers as part of an assault in the region, whose first stage was a similar step taken by Hamas. Ehud Olmert responded to the operation from the same perspective. He launched an all-out war against what he considered was an Iranian arsenal that had been built up by the transportation of weapons from Syrian territory to southern Lebanon.
From the first moment, Israel raised a slogan rejecting a return to the status quo ante in southern Lebanon. The US adopted the same slogan and was followed openly or secretly by other major powers. The slogan simply means punishing Hezbollah by denying it the right to deploy on the line bordering Israel and depriving it of the ability to change the delineation of this line. In other words, the slogan denies Hezbollah its regional role. It also means punishing Tehran by erasing the Iranian-Israeli 'border' in southern Lebanon and keeping Israel's security safe from the effects of the Iranian nuclear file. Again, the slogan means punishing Damascus by eliminating the Syrian-Israeli border in southern Lebanon and denying it the benefits of the 'reminder operations' conducted by Hezbollah. Washington seized the opportunity of the outbreak of hostilities to punish the three parties by making the current war 'the war to end all wars' in southern Lebanon. It may be said that the major powers shared America this attitude which is to be found explicitly and implicitly in the Resolution.
The Lebanese government was awake at a very early stage to the danger inherent in the US-French draft resolution. It found the draft resolution as much beyond its capabilities as the war that had started. The government formulated the seven points by consensus, and under the Arab umbrella. With Arab support, Lebanon fought to modify the draft resolution, and it may be said that it scored some points, though the result fell short of what was desired. The Resolution punishes Hezbollah, but it gives the Lebanese government support to extend its authority all over Lebanese territory. It did not cede to Hezbollah's demands concerning the issue of the prisoners or the Shebaa Farms. But it gave the government a gift in the form of closing the southern Lebanese front and taking it out of the cesspool of being the centripetal force for the conflicting powers in the region. This is a great and very serious issue.
The Lebanese government may consider the Resolution as an opportunity, even though it does not satisfy all its demands. It is an opportunity to stop Israel's devastating war which has made a quarter of the population homeless, thereby setting a record for massacres, which the Resolution has ignored. It is an opportunity to avoid a protracted war in which the Lebanese State would have been the victim, or of which it would have borne the brunt. The opportunity entails stability, augmenting reconstruction, and restoring to the government its prerogative to decide on war or peace. This last point will make this war the last of all wars in southern Lebanon, if the Resolution is successfully implemented. The Lebanese government can say that the Resolution guarantees Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory, that it does not mention Chapter 7 and that it does not ignore the Shebaa Farms. But this opportunity may become a cup of poison if Hezbollah rejects the Resolution. If this happens, the government will find itself facing one of two painful options: getting rid of the cup of poison and, consequently, finding itself isolated internationally, which would be more than the country could bear; or drinking the cup of poison despite the knowledge of the heavy cost this would entail.
It is an elementary fact that Hezbollah will consider the Resolution as a cup of poison. To drink it will be costly, to push it aside even more so. The picture will be bleaker if the Israeli army achieves, after the Resolution is passed and for the implementation of the ceasefire, what it had failed to accomplish in a month. The picture will be most likely the same for Tehran and Damascus: they will have to cede that heavy losses have been sustained, and refuse to run the risk of expanding the conflict in international circumstances not in their favor. Here, one should note that the Resolution is supported by the Russians, the Chinese, the Arabs, and the Muslim countries.
No one expected that Mr. Hassan Nasrallah would praise the Resolution in his speech yesterday. His position was characterized by flexibility and a 'wait-and-see' approach, though he recorded some reservations which may be taken up by the opposition later. It was not expected that there would be a total rejection of the Resolution. Refusal means that there are partners who agree to refuse, and we must therefore wait to see the attitude of Tehran and Damascus. Hezbollah's praise of the Lebanese government adds to its responsibility: an effective solution of the prisoners' issue and, with that, of the Shebaa Farms problem, would allow Hezbollah to talk about the fruits of steadfastness. If Hezbollah, which has come out of a confrontation, is embraced by the nation at large, this will make it easier for it to make some painful decisions.
War is for the strong. Peace is the time for the wise. Today, Lebanon needs to assign to the wise the task of rebuilding the country. The starting point for this is the slogan that every Lebanese's surety is the State, not his sect or the political party he supports. Safeguarding Lebanon's stability also requires wisdom on the part of the Lebanese and the international community in addressing the parties who are most effective in that direction. I am thinking of Kofi Annan and some European parties. They can open the door to a dialogue with Damascus and Tehran and turn the cup of poison into an opportunity if Washington bows to the necessity of confronting the root causes of all the problems in the region. Washington must recognize the need to open all the doors for opportunities. Because, sometimes, treating problems by making one drink from the cup of poison tempts one to opt for suicidal operations.

Neutrality: Lebanon's Salvation in the Long-Run
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 15/08/06//
The voices that have called for and continue to call for an end to the utilization of Lebanon as a battleground for regional conflicts and neighborly disputes are not few. However, such calls - if Lebanon can get out of this in one piece - demand a degree of institutionalization and rooting. This alone will transform noble desires and dreams into realities that cannot be easily circumvented by neighbors not known for their respect of such dreams and desires, regardless of how noble they are.
Suffice it to say that institutionalization and rootedness themselves need to be imposed on the coming generations under the control of States, as well as international institutions. Based on what we know is politically feasible, there is no solution, in the long-run, except neutrality: the only viable avenue that is worth pursuing. All those, whether Lebanese or non-Lebanese, who want to extract Lebanon from this vicious cycle of destruction, should coalesce their efforts toward this goal. Even more important is that they should prevent a repetition of this cycle.
Why neutrality?
First, Lebanon can withstand no more violence, whatever the cause and however just it may be. This is not a matter of soul-stirring oratory or compositional niceties, when a fifth of the population has become displaced and there is not a single utility, essential or not so essential, left workable.
Second, because Lebanon is incapable of possessing military strength for obvious reasons that need no explanation. This, in turn, means that any violence at all will be a pretext for invasion or military occupation, whether minor or major. Since the earliest experiences, in the bygone days of the PLO, this 'rule' has held.
Third, because violence threatens Lebanon's already fragile national unity with annihilation, thanks to the differing Lebanese narratives of the self and the other, present and future. And it goes without saying that the loss of the homeland in the event of such a fragmentation of its nebulous tissue cannot be made up for by the victories of any 'Cause' or 'resistance'.
Fourth, because stability and security are the key prerequisites for the Lebanese economy, which cannot function in the least without services of all kinds and foreign direct investment, let alone the revenues from tourism and summer vacationing. Building a war economy, in effect, is a recipe for ending Lebanon .
Fifth, all the Arab States live under the umbrella of military neutrality, in one form or another. It is simply that they operate under an implicit and non-institutionalized, undeclared policy of such neutrality. This obviously has consequences for Arab treaties, such as the joint defense agreement, among other Arab military obligations toward each other. Needless to say, all these obligations have been put in cold storage.
Therefore, at this point, some clarifications have to be made:
First, neutrality is confined to the military level, by definition and by nature. It is intimately linked with preventing security operations, acts of war, and the passage of troops from one country to another, and to the frontline. It also means that a country cannot join military alliances or allow foreign military bases on its soil.
Second, and in relation to the first point, such arrangements are meant to protect the nation from other, stronger parties, not to protect these stronger parties from Lebanon , from which they clearly need no protection. What Lebanon has suffered over the past month has proved how stupid is the pretension that removing Lebanon from armed confrontation means protecting Israel. It would be convenient to recall that the idea of Austrian neutrality, which was born in 1945, ten whole years before its implementation, was meant to rid Austria of occupying armies and insure the sovereignty of the country and its independence.
Third, neutrality has no effect on foreign policy, culture or economics, let alone feelings. Lebanon is inevitably a part of the cultural and economic cycle of the Arab World, and cannot escape this fate, even if it wanted to. Lebanon 's interest - by any criterion - lies in deepening this position, and remaining an active participant in all Arab outlets and international forums. Neutral Switzerland, for instance, joined the League of Nations, but not the UN, whereas Austria is a member of both the UN and the EU.
In the same vein, there is no such thing as economic or cultural neutrality. Even Switzerland , during World War II, overstepped its neutrality by allowing its financial and industrial institutions to carry out transactions with Nazi Germany. (Hence the theory that neutral Switzerland prolonged World War II through its deals with Germany.)
Fourth, military neutrality in no way detracts from the duty of supporting, financially and morally, the cause of the Palestinian people. It does, however, naturally contradict upgrading such support to the military level, whether on the borders or internally. We can hate Israel as much as we like on the condition that we do not resist it and whoever wishes to love Syria or Iran can do so without bounds, provided he does not champion them militarily by supporting their armies or their proxy military organizations.
All of this is inseparable from the balance between the Arabs and the West. Lebanon has been riding the crest of the wave of this balance since its independence in 1943, and its moments of stability have resulted from the moments of the stability of this balance. As for today, the meaning of this relationship between the contenders has changed, just as the equations that rule this relationship have changed. Both demand that we rethink the meaning of a viable Lebanon.
Neutrality in this sense appears to be the most capable means of serving Lebanon's need to exist. It will secure this need and fence off threats to it for a long time to come.

The Most Urgent Task
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 15/08/06//
Much will be said about the confrontations of the 33-day war in Lebanon. Controversy will not cease with the end of operations and the implementation of the ceasefire, if that happens, in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 1701. Much will be said about Israel's brutal campaign against Lebanon, and the great resilience of Hezbollah's fighters. But, apart from the words 'mobilization', 'enthusiasm' and 'heroism', the war has established facts that extend to different levels. These facts relate to Israel, its strategy and the deterrent force it has been using since its establishment. They also connect with Lebanon and its future ties with the Jewish State; and with the situation in Lebanon, after the Resistance stemmed the tide of aggression, raising the question of how this will reflect on the State and its role. The facts also bear on the regional situation, whether in relation to Hezbollah's military performance and the subsequent lessons derived from arming a non-governmental force, or to the form the next battle with Israel will take.
In Israel, no one doubts that the campaign against Lebanon has failed. The aggression will be remembered for its barbarity and brutality. The military and political leadership had previously set objectives to prove they were able to take on any challenge at any time. These claims have evaporated. Now, nothing remains but the points that can be scored without war. In Israel, there will be a reckoning at all levels because of the toll of the war. We are not concerned with who in Israel will pay. It is more important to observe the military, strategic and diplomatic lessons Israel will draw. Israel will benefit from these lessons in future conflicts with the Palestinians and in other occupied Arab territories, especially the Golan Heights.
These conclusions are correlated with the regional situation, especially regarding Syria. Syria made no secret of its support for the efforts in fighting Israel in Lebanon, and its relation with Hezbollah. The barbaric Israeli 33-day war focused on Lebanon. It was motivated by an arrogant tendency to discipline others. On the advice of Israeli officials, no clash erupted with Syria. But any future confrontation will not exclude this possibility. This is because the Israeli military prefers conventional wars with armies, not a guerilla warfare that can seriously hurt it. It was guerilla warfare that neutralized the Israeli forces on the battlefield.
But Lebanon is especially anxious for an actual implementation of the ceasefire as soon as possible, after the effective cessation of hostilities; the lifting of the air, naval and land blockade, and the deployment of the Lebanese army in the South to guarantee that Israel withdraws from the areas it occupied in the confrontation. Without a lasting ceasefire, the situation will remain open to all possibilities. This in turn means that it will be difficult for the displaced people, who are more than a million, to return to their homes. It will also be difficult to treat the injured, who are more than a thousand, and to help the victims. More important is restoring normal life to Lebanon.
To this effect, impeding the implementation of a durable ceasefire, for any reason and by any party, will deepen the crisis in the country. And this could help Israel's vicious assault to fully destroy the country. It is understood that Hezbollah will seek guarantees that it will not to be targeted by the Israeli forces which still occupy a part of Lebanon. Also, there is the demand to accelerate the implementation of the international Resolution with regard to the Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of the Lebanese army and UNIFIL forces. But help in this direction will not be efficacious unless the State and army gain enough confidence to guarantee the security of the South and its population. This is better than poring over calculations, estimates and plans that would leave the South at the mercy of the international Resolution.