An article from Haaretz:

Sources in Jerusalem believe the fighting in the north will cease toward the end of the current week on Thursday or Friday. Israel’s principal concern is that after the fighting, Hezbollah will take advantage of the cease-fire to restore its military capabilities, to purchase rockets and other arms, and to retrain its forces.

    Israeli officials are at odds with regard to who will oversee the implementation of the disarmament arrangements—the Lebanese Army, United Nations observers or a strong international force. In the wake of suggestions by Tony Blair and Kofi Annan that an international force be sent to Lebanon, “there was a certain softening in the Israeli position, which had insisted on relying on the Lebanese army only.” Our position has yet to be finalized,” a political source in Jerusalem said on Monday.

    The working assumption in Jerusalem is that the Lebanese army is strong enough to enforce the security arrangements, whereas a UN force along the lines of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) would be of little value. With regard to the deployment of a strong international force, such a move would pose a dilemma to Jerusalem, with soldiers of friendly countries risking their lives for Israel.

    One option currently under review in Jerusalem concerns working toward a new UN Security Council resolution that would update previous resolutions vis-a-vis Lebanon and reinforce the disarmament and supervision arrangements. In two weeks, the UN will hold its biannual discussion on extending UNIFIL’s mandate in southern Lebanon; Israel is expected to demand that the terms of the mandate be adapted in keeping with the current circumstances.

An op-ed by Barry Rubin in the Jerusalem Post:

Once again, as happened so often in past decades, the terrorists (with a little help from the privileged) are directing events. And rather than abandon the idea of finding the right murderous savior, much of the Arab world has just switched to the latest fad and the newest messiah. Gamal Abdel Nasser, Hafez Assad, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, and Osama bin Laden all failed. But no lesson is drawn from this. Now it is on the Hamas-Hizbullah axis that people place their faith.

[ . . . ] Nobody should have any illusions about the Lebanese government doing anything even if the whole country is leveled. The country’s leaders simultaneously use, fear, and support Hizbullah. To cheer on the extremists protects their careers, and none of them have gotten where they are today by caring very much about the nation’s interest.

Hamas and Hizbullah are now in the drivers’ seat of the Arab world. It is worth underlining the fact that these two groups were supposedly going to be moderated by winning elections and participating in governments. Now we know that the effect went the other way: The situation gets pushed in a radical direction when terrorists are in government.

Rubin concludes on a very pessimistic note:

[ . . . ] As for the long-term consequence of this crisis, I think that after the rockets and guns stop firing the big effect will be to fully reinstate the folly. As the Arab world rediscovers (if it ever forgot) that fighting Israel is more emotionally satisfying than fighting dictatorship or socioeconomic stagnation, the old pattern will prove as strong as ever. There will be no real democracy, peace, or rapid progress for the Arab world in this decade and, more likely than not, in the next one either.

It’s hard to disagree with him.

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post:

What is strange about [the war against militant Islamism], almost five years after 9/11 and after numerous follow-on attacks, is that – unlike World War II - the West is still confused about who the enemy is, how to fight it, and even over whether it is at war at all.

It is in this context that events of the last two days, as dismaying as they are, are also tentatively encouraging.

On Wednesday, a few hours after Hizbullah . . . attacked Israel, the foreign ministers of the UN Security Council’s permanent members . . . plus Germany (P5 + 1) jointly announced that they had tired of Teheran’s prevarications and would seek a resolution requiring Iran to dismantle its nuclear program.

[ . . . ] What does this have to do with the two-front war that Israel is embroiled in? Everything.

It is inconceivable that Hizbullah attacked Israel without the knowledge and blessing of Iran . . . it is entirely plausible that Iran either ordered or encouraged the Hizbullah attack to distract and intimidate the P5 + 1 foreign ministers meeting at that moment to consider Iran’s fate.

[ . . . ] What is plain to see, again, is the seamlessness of jihad. Whether or not we stand together in defending ourselves, our attackers do not make great distinctions between their jihads to destroy the “Great Satan” and the “Little Satan,” as the mullahs call America and Israel.

Israel, now, has started fighting back. But the profound setback that the IDF is now dealing to Hizbullah and Hamas cannot be divorced from the wider need to successfully confront Iran and Syria, the rogue states that have been supporting these terrorist groups with impunity.

[ . . . ] The international community cannot expect Iran to take its brinkmanship seriously when, at the same moment it threatens sanctions, it refuses to clearly take Israel’s side against Iran’s blatant act of proxy aggression. We cannot even say we have reached the end of the beginning before free nations show something of the solidarity and clarity of purpose that the jihadis – in Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and al-Qaida – show against us.