Something less than victory for Israel, and something less than defeat for Hizbullah, may be the only formula that can bring fighting to a stop, (Mideast: Ripples of War by Christopher Dickey and Rod Nordland, Newsweek, August 7, 2006 Issue)

According to the original US-Israeli thinking, there wouldn’t be any cease-fire until Israel had overrun Hizbullah’s outfit in southern Lebanon, smashed it to smithereens and created an ‘opportunity’ for the birth of a new ‘Middle East.’ In this scenario, Hizbullah would be practically killed and wouldn’t be able to be reborn. With a hindsight on Israel’s performance in the previous wars, this seemed to be an achievable goal. But so far it hasn’t happened and the bombs are continuing to drop in Lebanon and the missiles to fly into Israeli cities.

After the outbreak of hostilities, France had developed the outlines of a cease-fire resolution for UN’s adoption which was immediately rejected by the US and Great Britain. This resolution had called for an unconditional cease-fire. The unexpected continuation of the ongoing war in the face of tough resistance by Hizbullah has shown that the original US-Israeli plan will be too costly in terms of loss of human lives on both sides. So the powerbrokers sought a different resolution which would halt the war but not unconditionally as was originally called by France and endorsed by the other European countries.

The proposed French resolution is now broken down into two. The first resolution calls for cessation of hostilities and lays down the conditions under which the hostilities will cease. These conditions are favorable to Israel. According to them, Israel will stay put in the Lebanese territory which it will have occupied until a United Nations Peace-Keeping force has been assembled and put into place. (The second resolution will determine the structure of the UN Peace Keeping force. It will identify which countries will make up this force). Israel would then hand over the control of Southern Lebanon, the Hizbullah stronghold, to the UN peace keepers to disarm Hizbullah. Although no withdrawal of Israeli forces is specifically mentioned, it is implicitly understood that they will withdraw once the UN peace keepers are in place. There would be some language that is being worked upon that Hizbullah would be prevented from operating as a ‘state within a state.’ Although Israel has not formally accepted these terms but it most probably will because they are entirely to her advantage.

This resolution is thus somewhat more than a victory for Israel.

The Hizbullah which is not a formal party in this ‘truce’ agreement regards it as ‘something less than a defeat.’ It has called upon for withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon before cessation of hostilities can take place. This resolution also calls for the release of Israeli soldiers who had been capture (kidnapped) before the outbreak of the war without calling for the release of the prisoners held by Israel. Lebanon has rejected this resolution and has called for withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon as a pre-condition for cease-fire. Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice has a tough job in developing a resolution in collaboration mainly with France which would be acceptable to both parties. It appears that Hizbullah’s demands will not completely be ignored and sidelined; a piece of bone will have to be given to it. In the public statements issuing out from the US, it has already been recognized that Hizbullah is not completely a terrorist movement; it is a political party. It holds three cabinet positions in the Lebanese government. What makes it different from a normal political party is its own militia. The rhetoric has thus somewhat toned down from branding it a ‘terrorist’ organization to calling it a militant group. Does it have any independent political clout to play any formal significant role in negotiating a UN resolution? No, it does not; whatever demands it has will need to be formally worked through the government of Lebanon. It nonetheless appears that it needs to be appeased before any resolution is accepted by the government of Lebanon.

An awkward and very difficult question is whether the UN peace keepers will be able to disarm Hizbullah? This task is so difficult that Israel has failed to do it successfully in the present open warfare. Can UN forces do it by themselves? It seems very unlikely but then the politics is as unpredictable as ever.

Plan B might lead to a Plan C or Plan D.