---
Lebanon is an excellent example of how the pages of history are like the pages of a calendar: They are pulled out and fly in the wind along with the opportunities marked on them. The assumption that there will always be a Lebanese leadership that will seek to be close to Israel is similar to the assumption that there will always be a Palestinian leadership that will be forced to sign a peace agreement with Israel. But little Lebanon, lacking in strategic importance, is giving Israel the finger precisely because Mahmoud Abbas decided one day that he is tired of begging, and if Israel is interested in peace with him, tough luck.
Lebanon's position also offers a good view into Israel's new regional standing: It lacks any leverage through which it can force Beirut to sign a peace agreement. If it still holds Lebanese territory, that is insufficient leverage. At most, this would be cause for the continued arming of Hezbollah, or the threat to strike at Israeli targets.
Lebanon is also an example of a country controlled by an organization that dictates its foreign policy, just as Hamas dictates a significant part of the foreign policy of the Palestinian Authority, although it is not a partner in it. Territory in exchange for no fighting, Hezbollah says in the best-case scenario - just as Hamas offers a long-term cease-fire in exchange for withdrawal. No recognition and no negotiations.
This is also the position put forth by Syrian President Assad. In a recent interview with The New Yorker, he made it clear that there are differences between peace agreements. For the Golan Heights he is willing to make peace, which means no fighting and ending the military threat. Peace, normalization, warmth and love, on the other hand, are a different matter. When he started as president, he used to talk of normalization.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149625.html