Evidently, while Western analysts talk about Hezbollah being a state within a state inside Lebanon, or a "para-state," or an "non-state actor," and all those kinds of fancy terms, evidently Israel's leaders think that those are distinctions without a difference. With Hezbollah significantly integrated into Lebanon's national government, perhaps we might ask in what way is Lebanon itself innocent of that act of war? It's a hard question.

But apparently not to PM Olmert. In his view, Lebanon itself aggressed against Israel. Lebanon's government may be unable to bring Hezbollah to heel, but it is unwilling to do so in any event. Lebanon's chief officials, including the head of state and the prime minister, officially characterize Hezbollah as a national resistance movement.

Remember that even though it is ultimately beholden to Syria and Iran (mostly Iran), not the Siniora government in Beirut, Hezbollah's members are Lebanese, not Iranian or Syrian. It operates wholly inside Lebanon except for forays into Israel or sending terrorists on missions abroad. It is not possible, inside Lebanon, to fight against Hezbollah while somehow leaving Lebanon intact.

This is by no means to say that Israel is exempted from the accepted principles of distinction and proportionality in Just War Theory. It is to say that Israel believes that, tactically, fighting Hezbollah inside Lebanon is no different than fighting Lebanon as a whole. So Israel's air force target list is no different, either.

That being said, I also wonder whether the great vigor with which the IAF prosecutes violence across the whole of Lebanon has a longer-reach purpose than striking or hindering Hezbollah. Haaretz reported yesterday of "Major General (reserve) Amos Gilad, who headed the research division of Military Intelligence in the 1990's,"

Apparently, assuming the job of the defense minister's diplomatic-security coordinator has not changed the veteran intelligence officer's assessment of the situation. According to sources in the defense establishment, Gilad has succeeded in convincing the minister, Amir Peretz, and those around him that the key to the crisis in Lebanon lies in a peace agreement with Syria. Major General (reserve) Uri Saguy, who was chief of Military Intelligence and head of the negotiating team with Syria, relates that his public appeal (Haaretz, July 18) to open a channel of communication with Syria fell on open ears among his former colleagues in the IDF top brass. They told him that there are those in the General Staff who agree with his every word.

What the nature of such a "peace agreement" might be is not explained by Haaretz, but consider that its urgency is heightened by Damascus's dismissal of the idea of a multinational force deploying to southern Lebanon:

An editorial in the Syrian government daily Al-Ba'th declared this week that anyone who thinks that an international force on Lebanese soil is the solution is wrong. "These forces ... would be occupation forces, like the forces that have occupied Iraq and other places in the world," it said.

So what can Israel do to make a peace agreement appealing to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad? Obviously, Assad would have to think that however much he might want to war against Israel, it would be worse than making peace.

How to persuade Assad of that fact? Well, maybe by this:

. .

Is Assad considering Damascus looking like this?

Obviously, this is all speculation on my part. But I am wondering whether part of the intention of Israel's bombing campaign is to mount a demonstration. In military terminology, a demonstration is a show of military force in an area where combat is not sought or toward an adversary against whom combat is not sought. Its purpose is either deception or deterrence.

Could it be that Israel, in attacking Lebanon so severely from the air, is also deliberately signaling Assad that a peace agreement with Israel will be much preferable to the alternative?