It is actually Israel 0: Hezbollah 1.

A side only wins if it achieves its stated goals. Israel did not achieve this.

While Israel did make some gains against Hezbollah, it did not elimintate it as originally stated. One must wonder whether such a position was ever realistic.

In contrast, Hezbollah won by simply surviving.

No wonder the Israeli public is now railing against their political system. If peace is to come out on top, one must one day accept the practicalities of such a situation and that a "tennis metric" will not provide the answers.

I always appreciate the way Gary Brown waits until the headless chooks have stopped running around, then comes up with something reasonable and sensible.

If Hezbollah 'won', they are going to be in serious trouble if they ever lose. Fanatics such as Hezbollah can talk themselves into believing anything - that's what makes them dangerous, not their military might. It is a great pity that silly oranization, the United Nations, and its Third World and European wets did not allow Israel to finish the job. As it stands, it will be a long time before the fat lady sings in the area.

I think that Hezollah should check the map. Israel is still there.

Leigh, I have a legitimate question and I'm not trying to insult you.

When would you consider 'the job' finished? If every member of Hezbollah were killed? If Lebanon were razed with such totality that there was not a single weapon left in the country?

Rightly or wrongly there are large amounts of people in Lebanon and the ME that hate Israel, would you consider 'the job' completed once they have all recanted their views or been eradicated?

Frankly, it surprises me anyone can call the outcome a victory for one side or the other.

Hizbollah may have gained some fans in anti-Israel quarters, but has no doubt been militarily degraded, will likely have less ready use of the UN 'occupied' border area, and probably has a whole lot of explaining to do to those in Lebanon who have paid such a heavy price for Hizbollah's 'adventure.

Israel, on the other hand, has apparently reduced (though not eliminated) the day to day threat of Hizbollah, but failed to recover it's kidnaped soldiers, and damaged Hizbollah only at considerable cost to its own military.

There are no clear losers in all of this except the Lebanese who have brought catastrophe on themselves by tolerating the presence and activities of a para-military organisation whose on interests are not well aligned with their own.

I think Israel lost. She did not make Lebanon a Christian state of reduced size and she lost some ‘believers’.
I base my statement on Moshe Sharett's diary for the first and newspaper reports, which must be correct (!) for the latter.

Sharett, readers would know was the second prime minister of Israel preceded and followed by Ben Gurion, 1954 -1955 and foreign minister 1948 -1956.
A Zionist who believed in dialogue not force but also wanted the given boundaries to be expanded.
He kept a diary in Hebrew some of which was used by Livia Rokach in publishing Israel’s Sacred Terrorism. His son is quoted as saying the Rokach document is a fair, contextually correct and accurate rendition of the diary less than all the diary is used in the book.

Sharett records chapter 5
Then he Ben Gurion 1954… said to push Lebanon, that is the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State and in a letter to Sharett Feb 27 1954 ‘it is clear Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League‘.
This was subsequently attempted resulting in long periods of occupation of South Lebanon but not success.
Hezbollah arose as a movement to oppose Israel and others, in 1978, 1982 (bombing Beirut of US 1983) 1992 and became integrated in the Lebanese Government some 20 years ago.
If the latest war is seen as continuation of the long held aim rather than just the removal of Hezbollah the aim was not achieved.

Sharett also indicates an Isreael policy of being the 'attcked' not attacker.
See www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/sacred_terror.html?20062