Who won? Who lost? Who cares?

No sooner had the United Nations-mandated "cessation of hostilities" fallen into place along the southern border of Lebanon than the debate turned to who won and who lost in the 34-day incursion of Israel into Lebanese territory to go against Hexbo/Hezbollah militants who were allegedly sowing terror on Israel.

United States President George W. Bush, not surprisingly, declared that "Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis." On the other hand, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah proclaimed a "strategic and historic victory" by his militants, claiming that his "decent and devout" fighters "stood firmly against the United States."

Iran and Syria, the accused state sponsors of Hezbollah by way of providing funding, sophisticated arms including Katyusha and longer-range rockets, as well as training and sanctuary, called Hezbollah the clear winner.

Iran is well aware that the US may start a "pre-emptive war" over the Shiite-dominated and avowed anti-Israel nation’s nuclear development policy. Syria was kicked out of Lebanon, with US backing. Its President, Bashir Al-Assad, has openly attacked the Bush Doctrine precept of "preemptive war." Assad charges that preemptive war has not brought peace and states darkly that the region is not expecting peace anytime soon.

Israel is taking a prudently cautious attitude, which its critics take as a broad hint that the embattled state is waiting for the first and slightest excuse to resume hostilities. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is taking flak at home on his handling of the war. Approval ratings of the ruling coalition have come crashing down. Israel knows it did not knock out Hezbollah, but maintains that ‘time will tell" whether its strength has been depleted.

As indeed time may. Israel, while recalling some of its troops in the border area and instructing its commanders to stand down, has announced that it will withdraw fully only when the United Nations force (initially 3,500 soldiers) and a 15,000-strong Lebanese Army contingent is firmly ensconced in the southern Lebanese border.

Israel is also awaiting the results of as-yet unscheduled future talks on the release of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah, the immediate reason that allegedly ignited the Israeli bombings and incursion.

Israel has reserved a right to engage in "defensive" operations. UN Secretary General acknowledged as much when he reminded both sides not to respond to attacks "unless clearly required by self-defense," which effectively leaves to the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah the sole discretion to retaliate whenever deemed required by defensive considerations. Still, Israel didn’t bother to fire back when about ten Hezbollah rockets fell harmlessly on Israel within hours after the cessation of hostilities took effect.

The Lebanese government has wisely stayed out of the debate. It knows that its own viability has come under serious question, in light of allegations that it completely abdicated any sovereign role in southern Lebanon to Hezbollah. In truth, Beirut left that area’s defense, education, health and other social welfare services to Hezbollah.

So, who won and who lost? Did the gains achieved justify the enormous cost in lives lost, the thousands injured or left homeless, and valuable infrastructure destroyed?

Can we say, with one Israeli cabinet minister, that the "good guys" won? That assumes we can distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. But, listening to civilians on both sides recite their painful experiences during this conflict, we probably won’t be able to. It depends on which side of the Lebanese border you’re in.

The cessation of hostilities, at least, put a stop to the killings and destruction for now. But the 34-day war resolved nothing, and may have even opened up new wounds. The threat from Katyusha rockets remains and will be there for so long as the Hezbollah does not disarm, which the militant organization has not undertaken to do.

The Lebanese government has said it won’t "force" Hezbollah to disarm. Other countries see that as more proof of Beirut’s endemic weakness. Obviously, Hezbollah isn’t about to let the Israelis do it. The United Nations "peace-keeping" force argues it doesn’t have a mandate to disarm Hezbollah. The net result is that none seems to be ready or willing to do the dirty job.

On the other hand, Israel takes comfort from the Hezbollah agreement to allow the UN force into the border, and from the Lebanese government commitment to deploy 15,000 troops in the area. Before the war, no one believed this would ever happen, Israeli government spokesmen assure us.

There are those who are convinced that, at the moment, the question isn’t at all relevant. Both sides, as well as international media, have branded the current situation as a "fragile peace." An ever-cautious Israel, too experienced in the ultimate fates of similar "peace initiatives," calls it "only a beginning."

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is basking in the glory of this "breakthrough." But even that victory, if it can be called that, is heavily qualified by crystal-clear understanding of where US interests lie in the Middle East.

As for Iran and Syria, the real betes noires who must ultimately be addressed by the US, Britain and their allies in an increasingly unreliable "international anti-terrorist coalition," well, both seem to be feeling exceedingly triumphal these days. Their guy did well by their estimate, and Hezbollah, warts and all, is in their view now a permanent and major presence in the Lebanese political and social landscape.

The long and the short of it, it seems, is that the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon does not mark an end. Rather, it’s only another beginning in a rocky road that history shows never really ends. But as international diplomacy in this region shows, that’s par for the course.