As the crisis in the Middle East sees new levels of political fury attempting to prevent a regional escalation and all-out war, German editorials express worries ranging from the diplomatic exclusion of Syria and Iran to the historically charged prospect of German soldiers facing the possibility of entering Israel under a United Nations mandate.

On Wednesday, diplomats representing the US, Russia, the European Union, the United Nations and the World Bank, among others, traveled to Rome to discuss ways to end the crisis, including a cease-fire, the disarming of the Shiite militia Hezbollah and the introduction of an international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon.

German newspapers offer mixed views of the latest developments, with each argument seeming to fall neatly within political party lines.

As US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice meets her diplomatic counterparts in Rome on Wednesday, the Financial Times Deutschland writes, one important representative won't be there: Syria. The meeting's attempt to quell escalating tensions will be made more difficult by this conspicuous absence, even though "Syria is, together with Iran, a supporter of Hezbollah. Without its help, the militia couldn't arm itself. Yet despite the fact that Syria is at the center of the conflict, it is still considered a 'no-go area' when it comes to seeking solutions," the paper adds. But there is no getting past the fact that peace cannot be achieved without including Syria. This is a bitter pill to swallow for the US, which has called Syrian President Bashar Assad a "pariah" of the international community; "His regime supports terrorism and has also been linked to the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. He's earned his slot on George W. Bush's list of rogue nations." There is, of course, another option: Western powers could solve the problem of Hezbollah themselves "even with violence if they had to." But right now, the paper concludes, "it doesn't appear that anyone has the appetite to send UN troops to Lebanon."

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, when it comes the conflict, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has it much easier than the Israelis. He can play the "Arab David to the Israeli military's Goliath," and all he has to do to win is just survive. That could make him a street hero throughout the Islamic world -- from Afghanistan to Indonesia. "After all that has been done to Muslims in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories," the editorial continues, "one Muslim is standing up to the 'American-Israeli axis of evil'....The war is anything but over, and it's still possible the Israeli Air Force could eliminate Nasrallah in one of his bunkers. That, of course, could change everything. Still, any quick military success is unlikely, with Nasrallah seemingly well protected, the Hezbollah well-armed and fighting on its own turf." At the same time, international pressure continues to grow over the humanitarian disaster and Israel cannot continue to bombard Lebanon for weeks on end. Looking at the growing diplomatic efforts to stop the crisis, the paper takes the opportunity to point out the problems with Washington's all-or-nothing position: "At a time when everything is up in the air, the US is starting negotiations by basically demanding Hezbollah's full capitulation: the freeing of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the creation of a security zone and the disarmament of the militia." That, the paper argues, "is less an offer of negotiations than an attempt to win time for the Israeli military action." Moreover, as Rice readied for her mission to the Middle East, Washington was preparing to expedite the delivery of bunker-busting bombs to Israel to be used against Nasrallah. For any diplomatic solution to be reached, Washington must be prepared to work with Syria and Iran behind the scenes.

But how can Washington and Tel Aviv negotiate with Tehran when they are currently doing indirect battle against it? The leftist Die Tageszeitung sees the attacks in Lebanon as a sort of proxy war led by Israel and the United States against the mullah regime. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni recently described Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas as the new "Axis of Evil," and President Bush has made similar statements. So the latest developments hardly come as any surprise. "Security experts in Israel and radical neoconservatives in the US share the opinion that the Bush administration should wage a decisive war against Iran before his term ends and before Iran possesses a nuclear bomb," the paper notes. According to this line of thinking, the act of wiping out Hezbollah -- even if doing so requires the sacrifice of Lebanon -- is an essential step. The trouncing isn't going to happen anytime soon, the paper notes: "The planned elimination of Hezbollah looks, at the moment, to be far off. Instead, there are more signs that a guerrilla-like warfare is taking hold -- with its characteristic durability. The time for a speedy, high-energy military success is over." If an international presence does not intervene soon, the paper argues, "the question of a giant showdown with Iran will only be question of time."

The conservative daily Die Welt examines European indifference to the ongoing missile attacks that have been directed against Israel since it withdraw from the Gaza Strip less than a year ago. If Europeans had actually paid attention to the killings of Israelis, the paper laments, perhaps it also could have ratcheted up the pressure against Hezbollah. "But that anger never developed," the paper writes, and what we get now is a "Hezbollah that has been permitted, unhindered, to expand its bases. Now it has become a heavily armed terrorist legion that hides in apartment blocks and can't just be weakened overnight." That, the paper argues, is why "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert needs time to complete his limited military operation. He should also be given this time under the condition that he avoid civilian casualties. Washington, Berlin, and even Paris know this and are acting accordingly," it adds. "A cease-fire without Hezbollah's defeat is not a serious option for any Western government." And "as cynical as it may sound, Olmert is doing exactly what UN Resolution 1559 dictates: He is disarming Hezbollah." That, the paper argues, is a far better option than Europe having to send troops to one of the most explosive regions in the world. Indeed, the French and the Americans were both driven out of Lebanon in 1983 through suicide bombings.

In a second editorial, the Süddeutsche Zeitung also expresses its anguish over the problems a security force could face in the Middle East. A military mission, the paper notes, would be seriously problematic for German troops considering the country's World War II history. So far, the government is emphasizing the fact that it hasn't been asked to participate in any mission, but it is not "unrealistic" that a UN request will come. That, of course, would open up a whole new can of worms. "What would happen if German soldiers had to prevent revenge actions against Hezbollah by defending Israeli troops?" the paper asks. "Young German soldiers should never be confronted with such a decision." The paper argues that German must do what it can to defend Israel's right to exist. It should continue to supply Jerusalem with submarines and other arms, it should send peacekeeping troops if they are needed, "but sending fighting troops to the Middle East would cross the line entirely."