While the military onslaught in the Middle East continues, the international community has largely stood by as helpless onlookers. Finally, ten days after the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers and Israel's fierce military reaction , the UN seems to have awoken from its slumber.

On Thursday, addressing the UN Security Council, Secretary General Kofi Annan called for an immediate halt to the violence. He condemned Hezbollah for sparking the conflict but also criticized Israel's "excessive use of force." Annan acknowledged there were "serious obstacles" to reaching a cease-fire. However, he suggested that if the soldiers were handed over to the Lebanese authorities via the Red Cross, the UN Security Council would expand its peacekeeping force on the UN drawn boundary with Israel, known as the Blue Line.

While Lebanon's special envoy to the UN Nouhad Mahmoud welcomed Annan's call for a cease-fire, the US and Israel rejected the proposals. Israel refused to halt its operations in Lebanon, which were launched initially to secure the release of the soldiers, but have now turned into a full-scale attempt to eradicate the Hezbollah threat on its border. As Israel calls on inhabitants of southern Lebanon to evacuate there is now growing speculation that it is planning a land offensive. 

German newspapers on Friday examine the reaction of the international community to the current conflict, as well as the wider implications for the region. The papers are divided on whether the Israeli action should be condemned or supported as an opportunity to finally defeat Hezbollah.

The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes that "it may seem a paradox" but the Israeli military attacks may create the conditions for a lasting solution. "Lebanon has been dragged into the war against its will because Hezbollah was able to run its own foreign policy as a state within a state, the main aim of which is to destroy Israel." If Israel manages to not just temporarily force the militia out of the border zone but to militarily weaken Hezbollah then a goal will have been achieved, "which neither the Lebanese army nor UN troops have been able to do – even if that seems heartless in the light of the suffering of the people." According to the paper, "it is no coincidence that the international calls for a cease-fire have been relatively muted so far. Past experience shows that provisional solutions in the Middle East sooner or later lead to new conflicts or even wars." This conviction is behind not just the tough military deployment of the Israelis but also the silence on the part of the Arab regimes. "In the end the radical Islamic forces such as Hamas and Hezbollah … threaten the far from democratic regimes in the Arab world." The paper comments that Syria "is playing with fire" by thinking it can use the fanatic Hamas and Hezbollah fighters for its own ends. "A triumph by the Islamists in the Middle East would also endanger the Syrian Baath system."

Financial daily Handelsblatt writes that it is important not to forget that this conflict was started by Hezbollah. They "cowardly hide behind the human shield of their own people" and are to be blamed for the Israeli counter attack and the high number of civilian victims in Lebanon. "Israel is defending an internationally recognised border" and bases its actions on the UN resolution that demands the disarming of Hezbollah. According to the paper, the Israeli soldiers are therefore carrying out a policy of legitimate self defense to protect their own people. The paper adds that "they are pursuing a war in order to help prevent a far worse war in the future." It is only by destroying Hezbollah's potential to attack that Israel can send a strong message to Syria and Iran. "The greater the defeat of Hezbollah the more carefully these two main sponsors of terrorism will act." The paper argues that Israel can buy a few years with this war in southern Lebanon, "which it should use to really find a solution to the Palestinian problem."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes that many Arab regimes are considered weak by their own citizens "because they haven’t managed to restrain Israel or to help the Palestinians to establish a viable state." Lebanon is also a weak country as "its government hasn’t been able to build up a strong army or to disarm Hizbollah." However, according to the paper "no one wants a strong Lebanese state" not the Syrians, who never wanted to lose their influence in Beirut, not the powerful Lebanese families, and not Israel. "Before the war Hezbollah had also been weakened. Its Syrian friends had withdrawn from Lebanon due to strong political pressure and calls for the disarming of the militia had become stronger." However as a result of the war Hezbollah leader "Hassan Nasrallah is enjoying hero status, an Arab leader who has dared to attack Israel."

The left-wing Tageszeitung writes that there are some glimmers of hope in the conflict. It writes that "militarily Israel's invasion is a failure" as it hasn’t been able to inflict significant losses on the Hezbollah militia and the missile attacks on northern Israel have not stopped. It is therefore even more remarkable that the Lebanese prime minister has called on the world to help Lebanon disarm Hizbollah because it is damaging his country. Even the Israeli government doesn’t seem to want to only rely on its fire power. According to the paper, that is the only way to interpret the Israeli foreign ministry's request that Germany act as a mediator to help save the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. "It is therefore high time that the US availed of this small opportunity and that Condoleezza Rice finally travels to Jerusalem in order to replace the military logic with a political one." The paper adds that for this to occur the US' European allies, and particularly Germany, also have to be aggressive in demanding that the military escalation stops -- which means that Israel should halt the bombing campaign."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung, commenting on Kofi Annan's offer of deploying UN send troops to enforce a cease-fire, asks "where is the cease-fire? The UN isn’t in a position to produce one, legally, politically or militarily." The deployment of UN troops would depend on the warring parties agreeing to allow the troops to keep them apart. The paper argues that neither side is interested in this solution. In addition to the release of the soldiers, Israel would want a guarantee that the missile attacks would cease: "But there can be no guarantee for that." The paper argues this would require the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah which is why these groups have no interest in a UN mission. The paper writes that the Israelis know from experience that they can defend themselves but also "that they can't win." There can only be peace in the Middle East "if the existence of Israel is accepted as a matter of course." And the paper argues that there is no way out of this situation, but rather there are only small steps that can be taken to possibly create a Palestinian state that the Israelis would not view as "a base for launching Qassam missiles" at them. According to the paper, these steps would include "an end to the delivery of Russian weapons to Syria," and Europe taking an interest in where its money is going and what policies are being funded by it.

Financial Times Deutschland writes that George W. Bush completely withdrew from the Middle East peace process because he didn’t want to risk failing in attempts at mediation or to damage his image in the eyes of voters. The paper adds that after September 11 America concentrated all its powers on the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan. "The dramatic consequences of this policy of non-engagement are now evident." The Bush administration "seems as surprised as the rest of the world" by its close ally's massive Lebanon offensive and it "underestimated the conflict's potential for escalation." According to FTD, "unlike the Europeans, the Americans share Israel's conviction that the Hezbollah must be put out of action militarily, before there can be a cease-fire." The paper describes this position as "highly risky." The longer Israel's attacks on Lebanon last and the harder they become the more the doubts grow in the rest of the world that this action is proportionate. While civilians die and hundreds of thousands flee "military experts warn: a war against terrorist guerrillas like Hezbollah cannot be won militarily."