The guns in Lebanon have fallen silent. Refugees are returning to their homes in southern Lebanon and Israelis displaced by Hezbollah rocket fire are likewise returning to northern Israel. But the cease-fire is still tense and Lebanon is under international pressure to move troops into southern Lebanon as quickly as possible to monitor the cease-fire. Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr said the force could be on the north side of the Litani River by the end of the week but would need longer to take up positions south of the river.

The international force, being assembled to strengthen the small United Nations mission that is currently in southern Lebanon, is likewise taking shape slowly. Both Italy and France have pledged troops as have Malaysia and Turkey. The German press on Tuesday is urging speed.

Left-leaning Die Tageszeitung is among those on Tuesday calling for quick action. Despite "numerous obscurities, contradictions and shortcomings of the UN resolution," it is "currently the only and the best of all the bad possibilities for a lasting cease-fire." And "maybe the conflict can even be resolved," the paper adds optimistically. But, the editorial stresses, the cease-fire only has a chance of success "if UN troops are stationed in southern Lebanon within the next couple of days –- not weeks." Additionally, these troops will need to be strong enough to "keep both conflicting parties from active fighting." All other questions, including such sensitive issues as the disarming of Hezbollah, can be discussed at a later date. What is needed now is action, not German technicalities or bureaucracy. "If Berlin and other capitals now press for clarifications to the UN resolution before sending out soldiers, the force might not end up with any troops at all."

According to the conservative daily Die Welt, "there is no cause for optimism" for those familiar with the less-than-successful track record of UN troops. "Aside from the East Timor operation, most blue helmet missions can be classified as failures," the paper laments. The UN and the members of the Security Council carry part of the blame for this war; about two years ago they called for Hezbollah to be disarmed and then left it up to Lebanon to do the job. If something is to come out of a new mission, one "must send an army that will not hesitate to fight." And what's more: "They need to be ready for a confrontation on the scale of the Americans' war on terror in Afghanistan." Hezbollah will not willingly give up its weapons. But "Europe seems to want to avoid all of this" and simply "wish the Lebanese well." Under this modus operandi, "UN soldiers may go unharmed, but this is not the way to create stability."

Germany is likewise discussing whether to send troops and if so, how many. Indications are mounting that a force will be sent -- and that it could be at least 1,000 soldiers. Still, given Germany's World War II history, there are many in the country who are reluctant to put German soldiers in a position where they might have to fire at Israelis. And any request for a deployment could face an uphill battle in Germany's parliament, the Bundestag.

The Financial Times Deutschland finds fault with the current decision-making process in Germany. According to the paper, the country's politicians are "sadly starting in the wrong place again -- their own belly-buttons." The paper argues that the discussion has been focused too much on how much involvement the world expects from Germany and not enough on what the Middle East needs. There are real reasons for Germany to get involved in settling the Lebanese conflict for security and economic reasons. Democratic Lebanon, "or at least what's left of it" needs to be rebuilt. And "it would be disastrous for the entire region as well as for Europe, if Hezbollah succeeded in rising even stronger out of the ruins of Beirut." The current UN resolution may not be much, but a weak group of mercenaries is not what Lebanon needs to get back on its feet, the paper argues. And Berlin would do itself no favors were it to "focus on keeping out of it and making nice with all of the conflicting parties."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung emphasizes the molasses pace of talks in Germany, headlining its Tuesday editorial "One Step Further." And then proceeds to list all the various elements of the discussion for those who may not have been paying attention. To whit: Not all German political parties in Germany are in favor of military involvement, but it is ultimately the decision of Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet; Germany is wary of putting itself in a position where it may be forced to fight Israeli troops; and even if Germany doesn't get involved, the mere willingness to support military action "is a further … step on the way to emancipation from self-inflicted restraints of foreign policy involvement." The paper, in other words, merely points out the obvious: "The decision over Lebanon will force the German public to question their foreign policy identity."

Business daily Handelsblatt goes a bit further in looking at how the current situation -- and the possibility of Germany sending troops to the Middle East -- will test the relationship between the two countries. On the one hand, Germany's history -- and constitution -- requires a "special relationship" between Germany and Israel. But since 1967, German public opinion has changed dramatically from being pro-Israeli to being anti-Zionist. "Along with that comes a strong antipathy towards America." In addition, even as the US has followed a strongly pro-Israeli foreign policy, "the European Union has followed a different path." But that different path cannot blind the Europeans to the danger facing Israel "when Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their sponsors aim at the heart of Israel." Exactly how Germany ends up solving this conundrum will determine what kind of relationship the country will have with Israel.