Many analysts have speculated on who won this latest Middle Eastern war. A majority thinks the Hizballa David defeated the Israeli Goliath.
Before we debate who the winner is, let's state who the clear loser is: Lebanon. With over a thousand deaths, a devastated economy, a seriously damaged infrastructure, and the end of an foreseeable tourist boom, Lebanon is the big loser of this war.
The world, however, wants to know who the winner is, and doesn't care much for losers. The two candidates are Israel and Hiballa.
Israel's biggest loss in this war is its deterrence. For a whole month, and to the last day, Israel was not able to even reduce the itensity of the Katyushas striking its North. It was unable to stop Al Manar (Hizballa's TV station) from broadcasting, and suffered relatively heavy losses. The myths of the omnipotence of the Israeli Mossad, the supreme power of the Israeli Air Force and the indestructibility of the Merkava tank have been shattered.
Hizballa's biggest loss was also deterrence. The thousands of rockets and missiles it fired on Israel cause relatively little damage and few casulaties. Ironically, over half of the deaths on the Israeli side were Arabs. This is bad news for Iran who was counting on this deterrence in preventing the US and Israel from hitting its nuclear intallations.
On the ground, the two sides had reached a stalemate. Israel seemed unable to launch its customary lightining fast offensive and was bogged down for a while around Bint Jbeil and Maroun al Ras. Israel's armored corps took the brunt of the casulaties, with pictures reminiscent of the Yom Kipur war. But Israel was able to prove, after some hesitation, that it could strike anywhere in Lebanon through its daring comando operations, in the Baalbeck region and around Tyre. The Israelis were even able to capture a number of Hizballa operatives during these raids.
From a number's perspective, Israel has captured over a dozen Hizballa operatives, a much higher number than the two Israelis captured at the beginning of the war. While Hizballa has kept its casualties secret, there is little doubt that the Shiite militia has suffered heavier losses than the Israeli side.
The reason why there is no clear winner or loser in this war is that the war has not ended. The International Community has just pressed the pause button for a while...
As a matter of fact, Aoun has always been a passionate and honest leader whose only aim has been to see Lebanon free, free of any occupying army, be it Syrian or Israeli and free of corruption and cheap politics.
Remember the $42 billion dollar national debt, remember the time when they defended "The Sister" presence in Lebanon when Aoun was fighting the Syrians and remember the Hariri-Hizbollah alliance in the recent Lebanese elections. The whole story has nothing to do with a strong central government, it is all about a small elite group who are arrogant enough to think they can run the country and decide the future of Lebanon for generations to come regardless of the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese population.
Forget about a change of government and forget about early elections; let's have a referendum and let the Lebanese decide their future.
The March 14th Alliance has betrayed Aoun, yes. But no, Aoun did not betray Lebanon. How on Earth, did he betray his country? By supporting a group that has resisted an occupying force, or by having an open arm and helping fellow Lebanese when they needed it most.
Yes, the strategic interest of the Christians lie in an alliance with the Shiites and the Syrians.
5:49 AM
To Michel:
I would tend to agree with all you said about the past of General Aoun.
However, I disagree that our interests lie with Hizballa and the Syrians. You don't want us to forget the past deeds of Lebanese politicians, but you somehow want us to forget about Syria's deeds and its ambitions in Lebanon?
The Shiites and the Christians would make good allies, it's true. But not Hizballa! It's an Islamist organization, taking orders from a brutal theocratic regime in Tehran.
To understand Hizballa, look at their flag:
1. It has a verse of the Koran on top.
2. Has an AK47 in the middle along with a globe.
3. Has the name of the party Hizballa
4. An inscription saying: "The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon"
The nuance of the phrase is very important. It's not the Lebanese Islamic resistance, but the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon. They are not Lebanese, they are Islamic and happen to be in Lebanon.
For an other indication to Hizballah's allegiance look at their actions outside of Lebanon. They are doing Iran's work in Iraq by distabilizing the situation, and doing the same in the Palestinian territories ensuring the Palestinians and Israelis don't reach a settlement.
Bottom line: Hizballa is not a Lebanese resistance movement, but an extension of the Iranian "Revolution" in Lebanon. By allying himself with the Syrian regime and Hizballa, Aoun is taking the side of the enemies of Lebanon.