The crisis in the Lebanon is already a month old since Israeli forces entered south Lebanon in search of two of its soldiers abducted by Hizbullah, the Shite-based and Iran-backed militia, following an Israeli corporal who was initially taken as prisoner in late May.

A flurry of meetings in the capitals of the Middle East, Europe, the United Nations, North America and even Asia took place to find a “ceasefire”, “cessation of hostilities” and other diplomatic formulations that usually are banded around, each hoping against hope that “international concern” and “pressure of public opinion” will bring some degree of “stability” to what is essentially a tense, complex and difficult military situation on the ground.

In late July, the European Union floated the idea of a “multinational force” consisting of France, Italy, Norway and Turkey which would constitute “a robust force” to bring about some kind of military stand-off . Heads of states and of governments in Arab capitals differ in their approaches to seek a solution, depending on the respective Arab government’s strategic attitudes toward Israel, Lebanon and Iran. The UN in New York issued its predictable litany of diplomatic statements, underlining its helplessness in having credible leverage over any of the protagonists. The US Secretary of State rather awkwardly wanted “a ceasefire in days, not weeks” but found her words undercut by intensified shelling and missile attacks by both Israel and Hizbullah. Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the Organization of Islamic Conference called on the UN Security Council to be more assertive in condemning Israeli aggression.


In fact, diplomatic formulations, whatever the motives initiated by its proponents, have to yield to the military balance on the ground. The Israelis and Hizbullah forces face no immediate real economic sanctions or military threats that hamper their day to day tactical battles. Hizbullah surprised the Israeli defense force for its ability to move among the Lebanese population, dispersing more than 15000 Katyusha and Iranian as well as home grown rockets along Lebanon’s border with Israel. Israel had to resort to its air force to bomb and pound suspected Hizbullah outposts and bunkers, sustaining diplomatic condemnation from across the world, including many capitals in Western Europe.

From the outset, there has been general agreement that both the Israeli defense force and the Hizbullah have acted beyond the control of their respective backers. The intense hatred arising from anger, fear, deep vengeance and radical rhetoric, combined with personal as well as collective sufferings on both sides have led the military conflict run unchecked. Hizbullah found new methods of running a total war effort, confounding the Israeli military with their ingenuity and skill in deploying rockets and missiles from wide and dispersed areas. It can ignore calls for a cessation of hostilities so long as its human and military resources remain intact. The Israeli defense force, under increased international pressure to agree to a ceasefire or cessation of hostilities, can only do so if it feels that the Hizbullah forces are dismantled, if not destroyed, entirely. Neither side can afford to be seen as having to step down from its absolute minimum military threshold. So longs the war of military attrition continues, an agreed diplomatic formulation will have to wait for the appropriate balance of military forces.