Americans should resist the temptation to rush to judgment about the indecision at the finish of the Lebanon war where the fighting is ending with a whimper instead of a bang.

Criticism from the anti-Israel left is routine, but it is quite extraordinary to see the same people who insist on nuance and complexity in evaluating America’s difficult position in Iraq now rendering blanket assessments about Israel’s performance in Lebanon.

Those who want to focus on the consequences of a premature American withdrawal from Iraq rather than on past mistakes or initial policy flaws are coming down hard on the Israelis for not fighting more effectively and speedily enough to beat the diplomatic clock.

In an August 14, 2006 editorial, the Wall Street Journal reckons harshly that the war ends with a return to the “status quo ante.”

This is handing Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah an undeserved victory. Rather than sign off on the terrorist’s boasts of having achieved “strategic, historic victory” we should be reminding him of King Pyrrhus’ rueful comment following costly victories over the Romans: “One more such victory and I am lost.”

I don’t take Mr. Nasrallah’s current boasts of victory to heart. Another “victory” like this one, and he is lost.

For one thing, as Yogi would say, “It ain’t over till it’s over,” and by that standard, it ain’t over. In the larger fight of which this is a part, and even on the Israel-Hezbollah front, this is only the end of the beginning.

Let’s concentrate on what comes next, and leave the recriminations to the Israelis, who are quite good at it, thank you very much.

On Saturday, Israel lost 24 soldiers — the equivalent, given Israel’s small population, of 1,200 Americans.

Imagine losing 1,200 GI’s and marines in one day in Iraq.

All together Israel lost 156 people, of whom 116 were soldiers.That’s the equivalent of 5,800 American soldiers, and a total of 7,800 American lives.

As of August 9, 2006 — that is, after three years plus of fighting — America has lost 2,793 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, of which 2,593 were killed in Iraq.

Proportionally, Israel has lost more than twice that amount in just four weeks.

I don’t cite those numbers in order to make an argument for pacifism. But those Americans ready to keep fighting in Lebanon until the last Israeli should take the numbers into account.

Notwithstanding the horrific casualties, Israelis were willing to continue fighting; it was the Arab side that sought the cease fire. That speaks to Israeli advances and to the extent of the hurt Israel has put on Hezbollah.

Of course, if Jimmy the Greek was taking action, the odds would be against the cease fire succeeding. The high likelihood is that Lebanon will not fulfill its obligation to disarm Hezbollah or prevent the terrorist group from rearming.

The much-touted peacekeeping force, “robust” or not, will make it so much harder for Israel to strike back if — when — Hezbollah strikes again.

Iran and its allies will also have to reassess their view of Mr. Olmert and the generation of Israeli he represents.

I am quite confident that Mr. Nasrallah saw the new Israeli leaders as young and untested, sort of the way Khrushchev dismissed JFK in the run up to the Cuban missile crisis.

Not only was the formidable Mr. Sharon gone from the stage, but this would be the first war fought without the presence on stage of any of the leaders of Israel’s revolutionary generation that experienced or held leadership roles during the 1948 Independence war.

Shimon Peres is still around, but had little influence, playing Moshe Dayan to Mr. Olmert’s Menachem Begin: During the conflict, the prime minister dispatched Mr. Peres abroad to shore up support for the Israeli policy.

With that one exception, the revolutionary generation of leadership — and even the first generation that grew up with the founders — is gone.

Not that the revolutionary generation were always right. Golda Meir was prime minister during the Yom Kippur war, when Arab armies launched a successful surprise attack on Israel. But they had a gravitas that current leadership across the spectrum of the country’s politics lack.

Mr. Olmert appealed to Israelis tired of standing on the barricades. During his election campaign, Mr. Olmert sounded like he was running for class president, predicting that by the end of his term, Israel would be “a country that is fun to live in.”

In a pre-election interview with Aluf Benn of Ha’aretz, Mr. Olmert didn’t even mention Lebanon or Hezbollah.

Still, if the Arabs saw this as weakness, they had better readjust. The Israelis did not slice through Hezbollah like a hot knife through butter, but they stayed the course even though it was rough going.

Still, the biggest danger will be from those calling for intensified efforts towards a “comprehensive peace.”

Calls to Mr. Bush to ratchet up his diplomatic efforts to achieve Middle East peace are coming not only from Jimmy Carter and Brent Scowcroft but even from within the Pentagon.

During Thursday, August 3, 2006 hearings on Iraq before the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Central Command Commander General John Abizaid said that American policy in the Middle East should rest on three pillars: beating Al Qaeda, deterring Iran, and finding “a comprehensive solution to the corrosive Arab-Israeli conflict.”

I’m all for that, but under the current toxic conditions, I doubt that any solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict has a realistic chance.

As in Lebanon, there are no solutions because the conflict over territorial disputes is already on the verge of solution, while the deeper conflict, fueled by extreme nationalistic and theocratic opposition to Israel’s existence, burns white-hot.

So long as powerful state actors, most notably Iran, stroke these fires, they will burn on.

Mr. Twersky is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.