Do you think that the tank casualties played any part in giving in to a ceasefire that was IMO premature?
I think it gave those in the Israeli government that were looking for an excuse to not go after Hezbollah aggressively ammunition to use in their arguments, just like our soldiers dying to IEDs in Iraq gives those demanding we cut in run in Iraq ammunition.
However, I think that in the absence of those casualties, they would have just concentrated on other reasons.
While it is a tragedy the IDF members have had to give their lives defending their country, the losses were not strategically significant.
Such losses can be used to justify modifying the rules of engagement to show less concern for destroying Lebanese buildings, and risking higher civilian casualties by pounding the areas harder from the air and with artillery. However, if you accept the fact that Israel must take steps to defend itself, and that negotiating from a position of weakness has never worked in the past, then the issue of the tank casualties simply changes the discussion on the rules of engagement. It doesn't justify pulling out.
Therefore I'm left questioning the Israeli government's will to do what must be done to defend their country, and I'm sure Hezbollah is questioning it as well.
Right now Israel has put it's hopes on the UN peacekeeping force's will to step in, disarm Hezbollah, and keep the peace.
Without the threat of Israel being willing to do what is necessary to take out Hezbollah, I don't think Hezbollah is going to give up their weapons and quit attacking Israel, and I don't think the Lebanese military and UN will make them do so.
Israel, the Lebanese government, and the UN have all shown an unwillingness to follow through in disarming Hezbollah.
Until at least one of those groups demonstrates that willingness, Hezbollah isn't going to change or go away.