Israel fell victim to the strategic fallacy typical of western militaries: that a conventional military superiority can be used to defeat insurgencies.
gathered strength and support through the Israeli Defence Force (IDF)'s heavy-handedness
war resulted in the acceleration of rocket attacks on Israeli villages, it also tarnished the country's reputation, not only in the Arab world but globally, resulting in further condemnation of its military and foreign policies.
A quick comparison between the situation now and that prior to the invasion reveals both how much has changed and why Israel may take at least some satisfaction over its performance in the
safeguard, it is believed, against renewed Hizbollah attacks on Israel and a guarantee that the west keeps its eye on developments in the region
Lebanese army has also mobilised southwards to cover all "blue-line" villages where Hizbollah had previously operated freely.
tie its withdrawal from Lebanon to the formulation of rules of engagement that would allow it to engage Hizbollah, should it deem such action necessary.
The UN and Lebanese presence in southern Lebanon is there precisely to ensure that Hizbollah does not launch any further attacks on Israel.
breach of the ceasefire would in the international arena corrode any good faith it might have accrued as a side-product of IDF heavy-handedness.
If, on the other hand, Hizbollah succumbs (even if only for the time being) to the pressure to respect the ceasefire, this could translate into a political advantage for a currently beleaguered Ehud Olmert and for Israel more generally.
what about image? Surely the thirty-three-day war in Lebanon has damaged Israel's reputation, regionally and internationally?
Israel has made the most of a bad war and that, possibly, it has obtained benefits through war that would not have been possible otherwise.
