Ermyas Mulugeta, the Ethiopian-born German citizen and father of two who was attacked Sunday  night in Potsdam near Berlin, was still in critical condition on Wednesday. Doctors say he will be kept in an artificially induced coma for several weeks. While Potsdam's mayor has lamented the damage done to the city's reputation, some 400 demonstrators took to the streets this week in a spontaneously organized demonstration against right-wing violence. The police have received numerous leads after placing a recording of the voices of Mulugeta's attackers on the Internet (Mulugeta tried to phone his wife during the attack, and her mobile phone mailbox recorded the event). German federal prosecutors, calling the attack "public risk," have announced that they will direct the search for the perpetrators, which would otherwise have remained a local police operation. Showing the immense scrutiny the incident is receiving only two months before Germany hosts the World Cup, Chancellor Angela Merkel has also described it as a "despicable act."

German dailies discussing the attack interpret it both as a reflection of Germany's ongoing problems with xenophobia and right-wing violence and as one of the worst crimes to have occurred in Potsdam for many years. The various editorials set out to compare it to past attacks, as well as raising the question of what right-wing violence means for the upcoming soccer World Cup starting in June.

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung draws a comparison between Sunday's attack and another that occurred in the same state Brandenburg some four years ago. "Potsdam isn't Wittstock," the commentator asserts, noting that the widespread outrage provoked by the attack on Mulugeta is a welcome change from the combination of indifference and silent approval that was the common reaction to a May 2002 attack in the small town of Wittstock. There, a young German had murdered a 24-year-old ethnic German from Russia, Kajrat Batesvo, by crushing his skull with an 18-kilogram (40 lbs.) rock. The murder took place outside a night club, in front of roughly 50 witnesses. In recalling the event, the commentator also reminds his readers that the witnesses stubbornly refused to collaborate in court, revealing a disconcerting level of "hidden sympathy" with the attacker. Unlike those of Wittstock, the citizens of Potsdam have understood that "silence is as great a risk to public security as racist violence," the commentator writes.

An editorial in the right-wing daily Die Welt lists several casualties from Monday's attack, and the "Ethiopian-born German citizen unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time" is only one of them. The commentator begins by emphasizing the damage that has been done to Potsdam's image as a pretty tourist spot and center of leisure: "Potsdam is in the news, much to the chagrin of its mayor -- because this time it's not Sanssouci palace that's being discussed, but raw violence." The obligatory reference to statistics demonstrating an above-average level of right-wing violence in Potsdam comes after a suggestion that the reasons for this attack were not necessarily political -- while the attackers may have had "a problem with foreigners," the commentator writes, they may also just have wanted to "let off some steam." The hypothesis begs the question of why the attackers used racist language, but the commentator doesn't dwell on the issue, his real concern being the consequences of the attack for the upcoming World Cup: "Many a football fan will be concerned about his safety in a country unable to protect its citizens from raw violence." Of course, such fears would be entirely "exaggerated." After all, Mulugeta was saved by a passing taxi driver after he had been beaten more than half dead: "That's called moral courage."

While reporting extensively on the situation in Potsdam, the leftist tageszeitung chose not to publish an editorial on Sunday's attack. The editorial page does, however, feature a prominently placed cartoon that also draws a connection with the upcoming World Cup (albeit one more satirical than that in the Welt editorial): "Where have you been?" one dark-skinned man asks another. The second man -- whose head is covered in bandages, and who is wearing a souvenir T-shirt from Sanssouci palace (one of Potsdam's tourist attractions) -- replies by quoting the World Cup motto: "A time to make friends."

--Max Henninger, 12.15 p.m. CET

Escalation in the Middle East

In the midst of the Jewish holiday of Passover and only hours before the swearing in of the new Israeli parliament, Israel suffered the deadliest suicide bombing in over a year : on Monday, an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber detonated his explosives in a shopping district of Tel Aviv, killing nine people and wounding at least 49. Hamas, which leads the new Palestinian government, has defended the attacks as a legitimate response to Israeli "aggression." With Israel categorically refusing to negotiate with Hamas and the EU recently announcing its decision to provide no more aid to the Palestinian Authority, the attack comes at a time of maximum tension.

The German press continued to comment on the situation on Wednesday, taking a bleak view of the prospects for peace in the Middle East. Editorialists agree that a solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is currently nowhere in sight. They also express concern about the radical views of Hamas, sympathizing with the Israeli refusal to negotiate with the new Palestinian government.

An editorial in the center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung stresses the fact that the attack did not occur in the West Bank or Gaza, but in Tel Aviv, and concludes from this that it was "not an attack on the occupation or on Jewish settlers" but "on the Jewish state." Every previous Palestinian government condemned terror attacks, the commentator points out, but the current Hamas government has interpreted this attack as a legitimate act of self-defense. "Hamas is supposed to be responsible for the well-being of 3.5 million Palestinians," the commentator writes, "but instead, it is institutionalizing murder." While Palestinian president Abbas did condemn the attack, his characterization of it as "harmful to Palestinian national interests" does not go far enough, the commentator believes: "Abbas fell short of stating that killing other people is principally wrong." Overall, the editorial takes a thoroughly pessimistic view of the situation. Not only is there "no more peace process," but "it will be impossible to create a Palestinian state with Hamas in government, given that this wasn't even possible during the ten years when Fatah was in power." As for the increased international isolation of the Palestinian that has resulted from the electoral victory of Hamas, the commentator believes that this alone promises "hope for the future," as the resulting shortage of funds for the Palestinian government may lead to new elections.

A commentator writing in the right-wing Die Welt similarly places the blame for the current situation in the Middle East on the Hamas government elected in January, pointing out that the new interior minister Said Siyam announced that those conducting "operations" against Israel would not be imprisoned: "The declaration has not been without its effects," the commentator writes, suggesting that Monday's suicide bombing may be a direct consequence of Siyam's words. As for Israel's measured response to the attack, it shouldn't just be seen as part of a larger strategy, but also an expression of helplessness: "Like Europe and America, Israelis are at a loss as to how to deal with Hamas," the commentaror writes. "If Israel allows money to be channelled into the Palestinian territories, then it will allow the situation of Palestinians to improve under a government that wants only death and terror; but if Israel disrupts the flow of money, then the already weak structures of the Palestinian state will collapse, such that the number of extremists would rise and Israel's security would decline." In such a catch-22 situation -- one in which "there simply is no satisfactory option" -- Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's will have to settle for compromises such as "eliminating the individual planners of the attacks, without attacking Hamas as a whole," the commentator concludes.

An editorial in the left-wing Berliner Zeitung begins by pointing out a troubling series of paradoxes: "For years we wrote that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would not be solved for as long as Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat confront one another; now Sharon and Arafat are both gone and peace seems further away than ever. For years we wrote that the Palestinians have to democratically elect their government; now they've done so -- and peace is no closer." According to the commentator, the lesson to be learned is that it's "a waste of time to wait for a new generation," since terrorism is a reality that has profoundly transformed the Palestinian and Israeli societies: "It's been decades since there have been Israeli and Palestinians who didn't grow up fighting each other." The commentator blames much of the current deadlock on Hamas. If peace is "nowhere in sight," then this is largely because Hamas is not interested in peace, but rather "thrives on war," he writes, adding that Israel's current "restraint" -- its decision not to stage reprisal attacks on the Palestinian territories following the Tel Aviv suicide bombing -- is intended to make Europe and the USA "see that the escalation of Palestinian violence has little to do with Israel's reactions against suicide attacks."