"many Israeli supporters seem to have adopted a negative definition...So this assessment is very welcome."
Both are right. Debka is correct, this was far more costly for Iran and Syria financially than it was for Israel. The reason I still see it as a defeat is that Olmert (inexplicably) did not apply ground pressure until the cease-fire was already called. Because of this, Israel is now in a position to crush billions of dollars of Iranian/Syrian funded military infrastructure, but can do nothing because it did not take this position until after the ceasefire was called.
The existence of an even better outcome does not make this a defeat. That's a crazy way of defining victory and one that gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
Olmert should have done the end run around South lebanon to cut it off. Then pound the crap out of it from the air.
But what if this really was just "hot" exercises by Israel in preparation for serious stuff in Iraq.
Whatever the case, putting a large US force in Iraq is definitely looking like strategic genius on Bush's part. Can you imagine this same scenario with Saddam still in charge in Iraq?