What comes next?

Ibrahim Nafie examines Israeli responses to the end of its aggression on Lebanon

---

The Lebanese government welcomed UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calling for a cessation of hostilities between Hizbullah and Israel. Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora called the resolution a victory for Lebanon while Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that, despite his reservations, he accepted the resolution and would abide by all its clauses. It was the heroic steadfastness of Hizbullah fighters, Nasrallah added, that had prevented a worse scenario from taking place. All of Lebanon's factions and political parties supported the Lebanese government in its acceptance of the resolution which ended Israel's aggression and wilful killing.

Interestingly, the resolution did not set a date for the ceasefire, leaving the matter to the two concerned parties to decide. The Lebanese government welcomed the resolution immediately while the Israeli government said it needed to discuss the matter in its weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, 13 August. According to Israeli sources Israel's prime minister had asked the US administration for 60 hours after the resolution was passed to allow its forces the chance to occupy areas as far north as the Litani River.

Nahum Bernea, writing in Yediot Aharonot on 13 August, said the Israeli army had requested the delay. The aim was to seize positions and clear remaining Hizbullah positions in the south. Olmert agreed to the request and managed to persuade President Bush and Kofi Annan to give him what he wanted.

In the 60 hours following the resolution Israel embarked on its largest landing of troops since 1973. But it failed to change the course of war. According to Israeli analysts the outcome of the war is a resounding defeat for Israeli forces. Some blame the government and have already called for early parliamentarian elections while others argue that the defeat was a "blessing in disguise" and are demanding that Israel pursue peace talks with Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians.

Nahum Barnea urged Israelis to consider the significance of what has happened in Lebanon.

"In this war Israel was hit, Lebanon was hit and Hizbullah was hit. Naturally we focus on what happens to us. The damage was considerable in terms of losses, disruption on the domestic front and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. The worst part, however, is the realisation that the Israeli army cannot deliver. The army not only found it hard to win a battle against small Hizbullah cells but had trouble providing its soldiers with water and food. The crisis of confidence between the army and the politicians that has followed is reminiscent of what happened during the Yom Kippur war... The war is not over but the ceasefire gives Jews a chance to fight among themselves. This time the war will pit everyone against everyone: the government against the chiefs of staff, Olmert against Peretz, Olmert against Livini, army generals against one another, Knesset members against ministers, this government against past ones. Everyone feels betrayed and everyone is waiting with baited breath for the moment Nasrallah lets them vent their anger."

Former defence minister Moshe Arens wrote in Haaretz of 13 August that the government's agreement to a ceasefire demonstrates its short-sightedness and proves that it has failed and should step down. As soon as 1701 was passed analysts began accusing the government of mismanaging the war. It had, said many, damaged Israel's reputation, destroyed its image of invincibility, and shaken public confidence. The public has been shocked by the loss of men and material and horrified by Hizbullah's ability to shower Israel with rockets till the very end.

For most Israelis the inability to defeat Hizbullah in battle amounted to a defeat.

Eitan Haber, writing in Yediot Aharonot on the same day said that the war had ended in defeat and that "Olmert and Peretz fought the war for ulterior motives."

Leftist writers may have viewed the war as a defeat but some voiced the hope that it offers a chance to correct Israel's reliance on force and could lead to serious negotiations with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians. Yossi Beilin, wrote in Haaretz that, "Olmert must do two things after the war. One is to have a fact-finding committee investigate what happened. The other is to persuade Bush to hold a second Madrid summit aiming to reach a lasting peace on all fronts."

Gideon Levi, writing in the same issue of 13 August, argued that it was good for Israel to lose the war since this would force it to "find a way other than force to settle problems with its neighbours".