As the international community struggles to respond to the crisis in the Middle East, any hopes that the 48-hour bombing moratorium might have led to a cease-fire quickly faded. Israel continued its attacks on targets in southern Lebanon while Prime Minister Ehud Olmert signalled his determination to continue the fight, announcing that ground operations will be extended  in the Israeli campaign to remove the Hezbollah threat from its borders. It is uncertain how long Jerusalem thinks the offensive could last but the decision certainly contrasts with the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's optimism that a cease-fire could be achieved as early as this week .

Rice's claim that there is an "emerging consensus on what is necessary for both an urgent cease-fire and a lasting settlement," also looks somewhat hollow. While some countries such as Lebanon and France are calling for an immediate cease-fire, the US and Great Britain are sticking to their position that any cease-fire should be sustainable and form part of a broader peace settlement.

The European Union's foreign ministers are meeting on Tuesday to discuss their response to the crisis. Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, told reporters "it is unacceptable for Israel to continue with its current policy," and said the EU should take a united stance on the crisis. However the likelihood of the 25 member states reaching a common front would seem remote given Britain's determination to back US policy.

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung doubts that the meeting of EU foreign ministers will have any influence on "the course of the war or the number of victims." While a coordinated response might have had some impact, the paper writes that each European country "has gone its own way". The British "hide behind the Americans," the French want to oppose Nato and the US, and "the Germans resort to their old secret contacts in the Middle East and block any efforts to criticise Israel more severely." The paper argues that "there is no unity." This would all be fine if it weren’t for the fact that Brussels has increased expectations over the past few years. Since its participation in the Middle East quartet the EU "sees itself as an important factor" in the region. "A year ago it seems as though Old Europe might have gained the upper hand against Washington's hawks." However, the paper argues that the European response to Hamas' victory changed all that. Instead of "engaging the democratically elected radical Islamists in dialogue aimed at peace," Brussels followed the US in imposing a boycott "to force them into chaos and new elections." The paper concludes that while "a full analysis of the conflicts, loss of hegemony, risks and options in the region, from a European point of view" is required, little would indicate that the EU is ready for this task.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung looks at how the crisis has left the United Nations looking ineffectual. The Security Council has been unable to pass any cease-fire resolution due to US opposition. And the paper argues that the UN's poor relationship with Israel makes its position more difficult. "If Annan calls for an early cease-fire or castigates the Israeli military more than Hezbollah" then Jerusalem "immediately assumes partisanship." According the paper, this is because "the UN has been misused so often for anti-Israeli propaganda that it can no longer claim the role of referee in the Middle East." However, the paper argues that no other organisation can come up with a comprehensive peace deal that could end this war. "The Europeans are too weak, and Nato would attract too many anti-American attacks." If they received a strong mandate the UN blue helmets would be the best available instrument for peace. "But as Israel only trusts the Americans to protect it, Washington will have to finally support a comprehensive Middle East resolution."

The left-wing Tageszeitung writes there is a marked contrast between Condoleezza Rice's rhetoric and the hard facts. While the Secretary of State talked of the need for a cease-fire, "two US airbuses arrived in Tel Aviv laden with high-tech precision bombs." The paper argues that Hezbollah will not agree to a cease-fire or to the stationing of new international troops in Lebanon. "At least not under the conditions that Condoleezza Rice is continues to propose." The paper predicts that the next few days will be marked by a pointless contest: "to see which of the two opponents can be made responsible for shooting down the supposedly improved prospects for a cease-fire."

The financial daily Handelsblatt writes that the US has always acted as Israel's protector which means that "whoever messes with Israel knows that it has to deal with the US." The paper writes that the current US government has associated itself more closely than many of its predecessors with Israel. "President George W. Bush's Middle East policy was and is Israel policy." However, the paper argues that this has now become a problem for Washington. "A large part of its Middle East policy threatens to perish in Lebanon" and "the potential for anti-Israeli, anti-US hatred is reaching a new level in the region." According to the paper, this would be acceptable for Jerusalem and Washington "if the destruction of Hezbollah stood on the plus side." But the military campaign has been disappointing, and "this shows the power of asymmetric warfare." One of the best equipped and most modern armies in the world is not in a position to overcome an opponent that is "flexible, unfair and difficult to reckon with." If this conflict is the mark of the things to come then more is at stake than a lost war, there could also be a fundamental change of roles. It would also be a "public humiliation" for the US. If the war in Lebanon is lost, which the continued presence of Hezbollah would imply, "then Washington will have to negotiate, even if this is not in Israel's interest."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes that both sides in this war fear that its opponent will gain a "political triumph" which could then "endanger its own survival in the long term." Although Israel's existence is not threatened today, if the war ends with a realisation that it is "only a question of better missile technology until the population and economic centers of the country could be destroyed one day," then this would be a dramatic development. And Hezbollah is defending its legitimacy and reputation as a political player. The paper writes that if the current slight lull in the fighting can be used to help the suffering civilians and refugees then "it is not completely useless." While the "breathing space could also lead to new diplomatic ideas and initiatives," the paper concludes that "the slightest military incident" will be enough to reignite the flames of this war.