When a major power fights against an underdog and does not win immediately and easily, it does not take long for public opinion to speculate that the underdog has won by virtue of the fact that they have not yet lost. For every day the weaker army survives, more doubt is cast on the stronger foe. Like an overmatched boxer who goes the distance with a champion, everybody likes an underdog. Even if it be a cruel creation of Islamist terrorism, the existence of which is controlled by a singular mindset: the destruction of the nation of Israel. The same can be said for the Mujahadeen fighters in Iraq who are holding the Americans at bay, inflicting great damage through careful strategies, and collaborations with neighbourhood militias. Even the weakened Taliban in Afghanistan have shown signs of recent strength, even whilst losing nearly 50 to a man against NATO, they are nevertheless surviving and thriving in the face of great adversity.

But does this mean the Hizbullah, Mujahadeen, and Taliban fighters are winning their conflicts against the greater powers they face? Not exactly. The fact of the matter is that all of these guerilla armies represent the single most difficult force to uproot in warfare, especially when the guerilla army has support of the local population, or if not that, then at least coöperation through coercion. We may look at the Bay of Pigs invasion that failed in Cuba, when Castro’s guerilla army survived against American-funded mercaneries. The U.S. hardly wanted a protracted campaign against a group that could forever hide in the mountains, mounting raids, and collaborating with the Cuban peasantry. We need look no further than Vietnam to understand that even a much weaker army can inflict great damage on their home turf. The same can be said for Hizbullah, who moved effortlessly through the streets of cities and towns in Lebanon, supported and harboured by civilians who could see a common enemy.

My colleague on Thought Mechanics, Chris Voidis, has asserted that Hizbullah has achieved the goals set out by what is essentially a political organization with a military presence, and represents not the ideology of terrorism, but rather the liberation of territory it sees as having been usurped by Israel. I disagree fundamentally because, as Mr.Voidis points out in his own article, the motives behind the actions of the organization are not merely domestic reconciliation of territories, but is an all-out struggle for Islamic Jihadist victory, as supported by the regime in Iran. The goals of fundamentalist Islam are clear: the formation of an Islamic state that grows, spreads it’s territory, and converts or destroys those who oppose it. The eviction of Israel has remained at the forefront of radical Islamist ideology for decades, and is a mainstay doctrine even of al-Qaeda. What unites the Shia and Sunni Muslims is the common goal of the expulsion of Western influence, and the destruction of Israel. The most bitter of Muslim enemies can find common ground in the fight against Israel in the Middle East.

But to think Israel has been weakened, or that their image of power has been shattered, is by default a misunderstanding of the “facts on the ground”. Unlike the United States, a foreign occupying force in Afghanistan and Iraq, the nation of Israel is creating strategies to survive on it’s own soil. It is working toward a permanent solution that will enable it to live in relative peace, and as it is aware of Iran’s plans to continue to support Hizbullah, do not be surprised if Israel acts unilaterally and covertly, to undermine the power of Iran and Hizbullah in the region. Israel is not concerned with winning “hearts and minds”. They are not concerned with casualties and civilians, other than the effect it has on their international reputation and continued support by Britain and the United States. They are only concerned with the protection of their state, and the continued security of their cities from foreign strikes, which means that, at this very moment, Israel must be plotting preëmptive and unilateral measures to deal with this problem. And to borrow from Mr.Voidis’ own analogy, it is planning it’s next moves on the chessboard. There is only one surety in this current standoff: there will be more bloodshed.

What does bode well for Israel, is that while they withhold their bombing campaign, the Shia Lebanese civilians in the south will be extremely unlikely to support a renewed conflict with Israel, which would hamper the rebuilding and reconstruction of razed houses and burned-out homes. The conflict also cost the Lebanese government untold billions of dollars, which leads to a further conflict between Hizbullah and the country that loosely tolerates the presence of the militants. Meanwhile, Israel will continue a strategy that has effectively quelled the power of Hamas, by targeting the leaders of Hizbullah. Israel is widely considered to have the best intelligence agency in the world, as is required by a nation surrounded by hostile neighbours, and it seems certain that the government will make precision assassinations of Hizbullah leaders, one by one until the power structure and organization that it currently enjoys, will be reduced to the headless and aimless attacks typical of an al-Qaeda.

What may preserve the peace for now is the unprecedented commitment of peace-keeping troops from the EU and NATO nations who are not touching the Afghanistan conflict with a 10-foot pole. There is certainly motive for many Arab nations to preserve the peace as well. The moderate voices of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia do not want to see Iran’s Shiite grip on the region grow any stronger. There are strong divisions in the Middle East, and the Lebanese are greatly aware that neither Iran, nor Syria, the most vocal supporters of Hizbullah, have had to sacrifice their own men against Israel. The border of Syria has, in fact, been quiet since 1974. This would lend credence to the fact that Israel is still intensely feared by nations who would prefer somebody else take the fight to the enemy.

What many people are drawing from the conflict is a much more aware understanding of the fragile peace in the region. This was not about Hizbullah winning and Israel losing, as Mr.Voidis purports, but rather confirmation that Israel cannot impose peace through war. The nation of Israel is no less powerful, determined, or resourceful, to impose it’s own terms of peace in the region. It has, at times, been forced to compromise, but through it’s 60 year history in the Middle East, Israel has never complied to terrorist or military demands. It has always been through diplomatic dealings with moderates, that terms have been agreed upon, and peace has been reconciled. And ultimately if cooler heads prevail, Arabs have a lot to gain in the region: the creation of a Palestinian state, the withdrawl of Israeli forces and settlements, and the end of occupation of territory taken in the Arab invasion of 1967. Certainly Israel has taken lessons from this incursion into Lebanon. It would be sheer folly for Hizbullah not to do the same.