Hezbollah and Israel both claim victory - is it possible?

ABC news with Charles (formally known as Charlie) Gibson did a report on the different sides claiming victory in the month-long war. Arguments were made for Israel, Hezbollah, or Lebanon being the victors. Hezbollah claims victory because they persevered against Israel for a month without being completely wiped out. Israel claims victory because they pushed Hezbollah back 18 miles further away from their border than they had been at the start of the war. Some claim victory for Lebanon because they now have an opportunity to start fresh and strengthen their government's authority. These arguments come from a lack of understanding about what winning really is. Nobody won the war - it ended in a ceasefire, not a surrender. Ceasefires do not win wars - one side's acceptance of unconditional surrender makes that side the victor in any conflict. Look at all the great wars throughout history that ended with a clear-cut victor. Those wars were always decided not by ceasefires, but by surrender of one army to another. This is a well-understood rule of warfare. So why is ABC (and several others) making such a big deal about who actually won this war? My guess is that since Israel did actually gain ground in the conflict, and Hezbollah gained nothing, many would like to give Hezbollah credit for something, so they pose the idea of both sides being victors. Or maybe some people think victory consists of laying down your weapons and agreeing to stop fighting. In that case, I guess France was a great victor over Germany in WWII.