There will be great relief all round at the news that a ceasefire has been agreed on the Lebanese Israeli border after 16 days of fighting. But many will ask whether the written but unsigned ceasefire understanding, announced yesterday, justifies the horrifying loss of at least 150 lives, the flight of 400,000 refugees and the devastating destruction of property and infrastructure in Lebanon.
It is an utterly disproportionate balance, as can be seen clearly in the United Nations estimate that 23,000 shells, 600 air strikes and many naval bombardments were used by the Israelis, against the 1,000 Katyusha rockets fired by the Hizbullah groups against northern Israeli communities which caused far less damage. If the political will to reach a wider settlement involving Israel, Lebanon and Syria has not been reinforced by the events of the last 16 days, there is little enough reason to believe the ceasefire will hold.
The Israeli prime minister, Mr Shimon Peres, argues that the bombardment was justified as a retaliation against the escalation of Katyusha rocket attacks by the Hizbullah guerillas, spilling over from their resistance to Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. The operation was intended to show the Israeli electorate that he is not soft on defence and security, in advance of the general election on May 29th.
There was pathetically little Israeli protest about the disproportionate action, using high technology weapons, even after the massacre of refugees at the Qana Unifil camp, compared to the Israeli ground movements into Lebanon in 1982 and 1993. Most Israelis believe they have a fundamental right of self defence against what they see as threats to their very existence as a nation and a people.
Perhaps "Operation Grapes of Wrath" will be seen in future years by Israeli public opinion as at best a turning point in this paranoid view of Israel's role in the region, if it leads - as the outside powers so heavily involved in brokering the ceasefire very much hope it will - to a revival of the Middle East peace process. Judgments on this matter must be finely balanced. Mr Peres may have made his point with undecided Israeli voters; but he has gravely antagonised Israeli Arab ones and lost much international support.
Hizbullah's resistance to Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon has been justified in the eyes of Lebanese of all political hues and creeds who are now much more united; a continuing active front there, with casualties, or a resumption of Hamas terrorism, could change the electoral equation once again.
This week Mr Peres has been dealt a generous card by the Palestinian National Council decision to rewrite its charter deleting the reference to the destruction of Israel. His Labour Party has responded with an acknowledgment of the possibility of a Palestinian state. These decisions contain the germs of a reciprocity that could revive the peace process.
Ironically, "Operation Grapes of Wrath" has helped to rebalance the cards on the Arab side by bolstering the position of the Lebanese prime minister, Mr Hariri, and, most significantly, that of President, Assad of Syria. The welcome involvement of the French government and of the European Union, along with the United States, in brokering and underwriting this ceasefire agreement, will help to ensure that the peace process stands a greater chance of succeeding if it can be revived.