So what is it? A victory for Israel or Hezbollah? From the beginning the talking heads have been saying that if Hezbollah does nothing but survive, it will be a victory for them. They clucked on about how Hezbollah framed the conflict in those terms.
Econo-Girl has only this to ask:
Doesn't the media have complicity in framing the conflict that way? Isn't it disingenuous to say, over and over, that Hezbollah has only to survive to win when you are part of what is making that true?
And what is the lifespan of spin, anyway? How long are people going to think within the narrow confines of what is outlined for them? Two years? How long did that crap about Saddam Hussein being involved in Sept. 11 last? You can't hide behind the green curtain forever.
Econo-Girl posits that it was a defeat for both sides. After all, they had to compromise. Israel is very disappointed in its own performance and failed to wipe out Hezbollah completely. Hezbollah wasn't going to win in the end and they knew it, so they cut their losses and cease-fired now. What Hezbollah got was their own existence, the purpose of which was negated when Israel withdrew from Lebanon. But this entire conflict has highlighted to everyone the problems of a government not in control of its own territory. So the powerful role of Hezbollah will not be permitted in the future because of the MidEast war it almost sparked.
It probably was more of a defeat for Israel, but the conflict isn't really over yet. The bullets have just stopped flying, that's all. Let's wait and see.