The crisis in the Middle East has now entered the phase of shuttle diplomacy, with the West's foreign ministers heading to the region to try to bring about a peaceful resolution. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking en route to Israel on Sunday, signalled a shift in Washington's policy , saying there was an "urgent" need for a ceasefire while stressing that conditions had to be right. Rice plans to meet Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, before holding talks with European and Arab officials in Rome on Wednesday.

Washington's refusal to criticize Israel's military offensive in Lebanon has been interpreted as a tacit approval of its actions. The attack which was launched almost two weeks ago was provoked by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah and quickly evolved into a campaign to eradicate the terrorist threat on Israel's northern border. Israel has now indicated that it would be prepared to accept a temporary international force in southern Lebanon, possibly led by NATO.

But just how adament is the US about bringing the violence to an immediate end?

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes that in times of crisis such as these American shuttle diplomacy is standard practice. However, the paper argues that even though Condoleezza Rice is now heading for the region "she won't be visiting Arab capitals or working towards a ceasefire." According to the paper, Washington sees the conflict as "a chance to change something in the region." Even if Israel's attacks endanger democracy in Lebanon, the paper argues that "Washington hopes (and therefore helps with weapons deliveries) that Israel will at least severely weaken if not destroy Hezbollah." In the eyes of the Bush administration, this would be a success in the war on terror. "In the US view what is happening now in the Middle East is no usual crisis." It is Israel's fight for its very existence against Hezbollah and thus "a war by proxy between the US and Iran." According to the paper, for this reason alone, "Israel cannot lose." And the paper argues that "it doesn’t worry the president that the US is thus finally giving up its role as an 'honest broker' in the Middle East." The paper concludes that the super power can no longer withdraw. "It has now taken a clear stand and with it responsibility. In the end the US is the only country that can persuade Israel to stop the attacks and prevent the conflict spreading in the region."

The financial daily Handelsblatt writes that the conflict demonstrates how much America's once important influence in the Middle East has waned. "The US has no diplomatic contacts with Tehran or Damascus," it writes and "the UN now has to play the role that the US once did." According to the paper, Lebanon was one of the few examples of things going in the right direction from the American perspective. "For the first time in decades Lebanon was on a viable path to self-determination and democracy ... Along with the changes in Gaddafi's Libya, Lebanon could be offered up as proof that democracy was really possible in the Middle East." However, the paper argues, "the US did not do enough to support Fuad Siniora's weak coalition government." According to the paper, the Lebanese army was never in a position to disarm the Hezbollah militia after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 and so it would be unfair to blame the Lebanese government for the current developments. "It never had the slightest chance. Its only survival strategy was to hope that the economic success would steal the radical forces' thunder." If Lebanon is destroyed again, it will once more become the "plaything" of all of the protagonists from the civil war. "For Israel that is a nightmare scenario." The paper concludes that whichever way one looks "there are no good solutions, only less bad ones." And there is the recognition that the US must strengthen its diplomatic engagement there once more.

The left-wing Die Tageszeitung writes that it is becoming increasingly obvious that the original aim of freeing the soldiers is not achievable by military means. Even the defeat of the Shiite terror group is "no longer the declared aim." Israel and the US now "just want the extremists weakened." According to the paper, "for at least another week, perhaps longer, the air force will bomb Lebanon, and Hezbollah, which is still largely intact, will fire rockets at Israel." However, to prolong the offensive "risks missing the chances that have arisen out of the conflict." The government in Beirut seems ready to agree to Israeli demands to bring Hezbollah under control and to station its troops in southern Lebanon. "It is clear that this cannot work without Syrian cooperation." Damascus is now formulating conditions for a peaceful solution: "the return of the Golan Heights."

The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes that the important powers, even in the Arab world, have given Israel a free hand for a limited time to destroy or at least minimize the threat from Hezbollah. But it is doubtful whether this can be achieved without "completely destroying Lebanon economically and politically." The Israelis now accept what they rejected a week ago: the stationing of international troops, possibly led by NATO. According to the paper, such a force would be "unambiguously aligned politically and militarily: against Hezbollah and against its patrons in Damascus and Tehran … It is clear that any states that send troops would then be politically exposed." The paper argues that Israel doesn’t want a solution that "already holds within it the seeds of a future eruption of violence."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes that almost two weeks after the Israeli military offensive began, the shuttle diplomacy has commenced. "Finally." However, the paper is pessimistic that this diplomacy can lead to peace. "The logic of military escalation is fatal: It is easier to start a conflict than to end it." The paper writes that Ehmud Olmert's government had good reason to decide to attack Hezbollah which used the time since Israel's withdrawal to rearm. "Israel will only halt the fight when it is perceived as the 'victor' in the Arab world, and has decisively weakened Hezbollah." The Israelis see their invincible reputation as "life insurance in a region where their right to exist is questioned." The paper doesn’t see much prospect of a cease-fire and argues that every attempt at "mediation is doomed to failure." The world's foreign ministers can say 'the main thing is we're talking.'" The paper writes that they can estimate what room for manoeuvre there is and declare their willingness to act as brokers. and they have to put pressure on Iran and Syria and try to develop options for 'after' the conflict. However, the paper argues that if the Middle East Quartet wants to persuade Israel to halt its offensive, "then they have to accept some responsibility." It is not enough to come up with resolutions demanding that Hezbollah disarm. Israel has for the first time indicated that it would be prepared to accept international troops on the border. The paper concludes that while is still not clear what form such a mission would take, "there is nevertheless a glimmer of hope: The time for talking has begun."