The world's chief guardian of peace is asking for a lot: "What is important is that ... we do not walk away empty-handed," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said as he arrived in Rome. In the Italian capital on Wednesday, ideas will be mooted on how best to halt the escalating battle between Israel and Hezbollah and bring the fighting to a stop -- if not forever, then at least for a while. And, according to a growing international consensus, if necessary that peace should should be achieved and maintained under the auspices of international peacekeepers.

A large "coalition of the willing" has emerged in the past few days. But the outlook still remains muddied: Some favor pure UN peacekeepers, others are demanding NATO troops, and others a mix and match of either, with an additional contingent from the Arab states or Turkey. An international peacekeeping force with a mandate to secure the border zone between Israel and Lebanon and ensure the two warring parties do not come to blows, appears to many as an effective method to end the de-facto war.

But before it gets that far, there remains a long and rickety path ahead of the negotiators in Rome, who include the EU foreign policy chief and representatives of Arab States, the World Bank and the United Nations. Because before any international powers send troops to the embattled border separating Israel and Lebanon, a cease-fire has to be in place.

And herein lies the first problem: Israel is demanding nothing less than the complete disarmament of Hezbollah and the release of the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by the Shiite militia, before it will park its fighter jets back in the aircraft hangar. But the noises coming out of Beirut suggest Hezbollah doesn't want to give up fighting -- only if Israel were to release a significant number of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners would the group be prepared to leave their Katjuscha rockets in their silos. Israel, however, has categorically ruled out an exchange of prisoners. For his part, Hezbollah chief Hasan Nasrallah does not want to hand over the Syrian and Iranian rockets. He sees his organization as the final remaining power to stand up to Israel -- an idea that many in Lebanon and abroad share.

"Hezbollah doesn't want a cease-fire"

"It is not in Hezbollah's interest for there to be a cease-fire," says author Judith Palmer Hari, who has written extensively about the Islamist militia, which she has been monitoring in Beirut for years. At present, Hezbollah is using the opportunity to revel in its status as a resistance group, she says. They have shown no sign of tiring and have expressly rejected the deployment of international peacekeepers. "Whatever is decided in Rome will not come to pass," concludes the political scientist. If the Israeli and Lebanese governments do call for international troops, Palmer Harik warns, the peacekeepers could become targets for attack. Already stories are circulating in Lebanon of memories of the US marines who were forced out of Beirut by Hezbollah in 1983 after a bombing attack on a US base killed 241 American soldiers in one day.

This state of affairs means that Hezbollah, for better or worse, exercises a kind of veto power: All participating and interested parties except Hezbollah want the deployment of an international force, but Hezbollah can make sure than nobody is prepared to contribute any troops.

But what if Israel simply continued bombing Hezbollah targets and its suspected infrastructure, until the Islamists were too weak to resist the imposition of international troops? In European diplomatic circles it is assumed this is precisely the United States' calculation -- that Israel for this reason should still be given a relatively free hand in its campaign in Lebanon. But the humanitarian cost would be huge and could result in the deaths of hundreds more civilians as "collateral damage" in the fight against Hezbollah. It's a cynical theory, but also one that many in diplomatic circles have not ruled out.

Speculation has been widely reported that the Lebanese government itself does not oppose the idea of destroying Hezbollah as a military force. Last week, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora asked for help in disarming the militia which according to UN Resolution 1559 should already have laid down its arms. He also announced that he wants to reimpose state authority in southern Lebanon. But Siniora's statements have been weakened by another senior Lebanese politician, parliament speaker Nabih Berri, who said after a tense meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday that any issues besides a cease-fire should be dealt with at a later time.

Experts like Palmer Harik already doubt whether a military defeat of Hezbollah is even possible, because it has too many supporters who are willing to die for the cause. It is too simplistic to define Hezbollah purely as a terrorist group: it is a Lebanese hybrid, they campaign as a political party, with political representatives, a social welfare network, a movement: and in the south, a state within a state.

Making the most an opportunity

Hezbollah expert Hilal Khashan, who teaches at the American University of Beirut, thinks it is nevertheless completely possible to bring Hezbollah to its knees. "There could be a cease-fire by next week, if Israel has destroyed enough of Hezbollah's infrastructure by then. Then they can be disarmed." Khashan even thinks a best-case scenario is possible -- an accord between Hezbollah and Israel that would enable both to save face. For that to happen, he says, Israel must hand back the occupied, but unimportant Sheeba farms and a release a number of primarily Lebanese prisoners. Then Hezbollah fighters, because a part of their mission would have been fulfilled, could agreed to lay down their arms and proclaim themselves liberators, turning the movement into a purely political party.

Theoretically, Israel would also be served by this process, because its central interest is that after any proposed solution, the risk of new attacks by Hezbollah should be less than it was before. But in a speech given last Friday, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah said that victory for him did not mean conquering Haifa -- it meant continuing to battle against Israel. "So long as at least one rocket from Lebanon can be fired to hit the Zionists, the resistance continues to exist," he said. With statements like that, he doesn't sound very prepared to cut a political deal.

But in Rome, nobody will ask for Nasrallah's opinion. Nor will they ask for that of Israeli leader Edud Olmert. Indeed, the only member of the directly affected parties attending the summit is Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora.