The future of Lebanon after Resolution 1701 remains unclear, writes Doaa El-Bey Although the ceasefire is hanging by a thread, the truce in Lebanon left analysts enough time to analyse possible post-war scenarios. In the weekly independent Lebanese magazine Al-Massira , Anton Gaagaa wrote that Resolution 1701 came to compensate Israel for its military loss and deprive Hizbullah of a political victory. "Factors including complete Syrian impartiality towards the war, Iran's absence from the battlefield, in addition to Arab-Islamic silence, contributed towards Hizbullah's international isolation and boosted US influence in the Security Council to issue Resolution 1701," he argued. Gaagaa raised a few questions: do Iran and Syria want more than a ceasefire from Resolution 1701; do the US and Israel want something more than uprooting Hizbullah; like terrorising Syria and controlling Iran; does the resolution put an end to the war; was the war in Lebanon a conventional conflict or a preliminary round in an unlimited war that would have an unconventional ending? Gaagaa added that what happened in Lebanon since 12 July did not indicate that the actual war has started, according to Israel, or that the Jihad mission has ended, according to Hizbullah, or that the "warning message" has reached Iran and Syria, according to the US, or that the US and Israel have learnt their lesson, according to Hizbullah, Damascus and Tehran. Gaagaa concluded that the decisive war has not yet started. "The future and unity of Lebanon are in the balance in a confrontation that is witnessing a short break which might not last for long. Lebanon is in a situation where it will be a victim if it challenges Israel or a traitor if it confronts Hizbullah." Mohamed Salman hailed Lebanon's victory in the Lebanese daily Aliwaa. He regarded it as proof that the Lebanese will to fight is stronger than the Israeli military which fought on behalf of the US to change the map of the region, starting with Lebanon. "The Lebanese resistance imposed a new security, military and political balance that thwarted the US-Israeli attempt to establish a new Middle East by igniting civil wars and dividing the region into small and weak ethnic groups," Salman wrote. Amer Mashmoushi agreed with Salman in hailing the victory in Lebanon. He wrote in the same newspaper that the resistance freed Lebanon for the second time after it did so in 2000. He added that it also freed all the Arabs from the inferiority complex they had been suffering from ever since Israel occupied Palestinian lands in 1948. Mashmoushi argued that the victory raised very important questions -- what is the future of post- war Lebanon and who should Hizbullah hand its victory to? He believed that Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah needs to address a number of issues, probably the most important of which is Hizbullah's stand on the Taif agreement. Does Hizbullah still believe in the accord or does it plan to reconsider and plunge Lebanon into another crisis? Hazem Saghia wrote in the London-based Al-Hayat that Israel is trying to destroy not only Hizbullah but the whole of Lebanon. Saghia highlighted the failure to establish a proper state as being one major cause of the current crisis in Lebanon. Second, the more Lebanon is reluctant to establish a proper state, the more Israel is willing to commit atrocious acts against it. Third, the Israeli practices against Lebanon is in line with its practices against other Arab states. "One can conclude from the recent atrocities against Lebanon that Israel gave up any illusions to establish a joint future with its northern neighbours. This conforms with post Barak-Clinton policies of building the wall of separation," he added. Abdullah Al-Utaibi declined to consider Hizbullah's war against Israel a victory. He described it in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Ittihad as a bitter defeat that demolished the whole state and destroyed its infrastructure, power stations, highways and crossings. In addition, Al-Utaibi wrote that the war had affected all sectors and institutions in Lebanon including the army, health, agriculture, industry, investment and real estate. "Practically speaking, Hizbullah gave international forces what Riad Al-Solh and other independence leaders took from Israel after independence in 2000. Lebanon fought to free itself from the French occupation. Now, ironically, Nasrallah has given French forces the opportunity to enter Lebanon again." Al-Utaibi called on the Lebanese to take a firm stand against all the forces that are trying to use the country to achieve their own interests, and to free their state from the influence of any faction or group.
