With the conflict continuing to rage in the Middle East, diplomatic efforts are focused not only on securing an immediate cease-fire  but also on finding a lasting peaceful solution. As senior diplomats prepare to meet on Wednesday, the idea of stationing an international peacekeeping force along a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon now seems to be building steam.

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in the region on Monday and immediately embarked on a round of shuttle diplomacy. After paying a surprise visit to Beirut, where she met with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, she then arrived in Jerusalem for talks with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni  and is due to meet with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday. She will then depart for Rome to attend Wednesday's Middle East conference of senior diplomats.

One of the key issues for discussion at the meeting will be the possible deployment of a new international force in southern Lebanon. The United Nations already has a peacekeeping force in place -- UNIFIL, whose mission is to patrol the border. But the 2,000 UNIFIL troops stationed there since 1978 have been ineffective in preventing Hezbollah from rearming and attacking northern Israel. Now the government in Jerusalem has indicated that it would be prepared to accept a new international force -- but preferably under the command of NATO and with mandate similar to the one in Afghanistan, which allows security forces to enter into active combat with hostile forces.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes that Israel realizes that it is "losing sympathy because of the civilian victims" and as "the mood is beginning to change, it's time for more politics." According to the paper, this explains the "amazing policy shift" on the part of the Israel, which for the first time supports the idea of being protected by neutral troops. Neither occupation nor withdrawal has achieved security. "So why shouldn’t buffer troops from the rest of the world be responsible for more peace?" the paper asks. There is also growing pressure from Arabic states for a solution that stops Hezbollah from emerging "as the heroes of the drama." The paper argues that Hezbollah is unlikely to agree to the deployment, as it already has the monopoly on force in Lebanon. "Why should they give up this position of power. And who should take it from them?" Any proposed peacekeeping troops would have to use force to impose their will or "at least guarantee the Lebanese army support for such an action." The paper argues that NATO is "not unjustly seen as an instrument of the US." And if the US rules itself out of taking part in a Lebanon mission, then NATO with its integrated command structure would not be suitable. A combination of EU and Arab troops "would have political credibility but would presumably be stretched militarily." The paper adds that any troops stationed in southern Lebanon would be in danger of being dragged into the conflict or getting caught between the two opposing sides.

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes that there is little doubt that international troops will be sent to Lebanon to ensure long-term stability. "It remains to be seen what form this will take." According to the paper, the fact that the blue helmets already in southern Lebanon have been "toothless" in dealing with Hezbollah means that the idea of UN mission is treated with "considerable skepticism" in Israel and the US. However, experience shows that the "UN is indispensable in providing the political support for a military mission" but that it is better to leave the command to others. "A lot speaks for a renewed cooperation between the UN and NATO." The advantages of a NATO involvement are obvious: Israel has already signalled its support for such a solution, it would hardly contemplate other forces and "Beirut doesn’t care who comes." The paper adds that "NATO is the strongest militarily," while the EU wouldn’t be in a position "practically or politically" to administer a large complicated military deployment. However, "Iran and Syria would make life difficult for NATO troops," and the Arab world would see them as stooges of the US. According to the paper, that can be overcome if the mission is well planned by the UN and has a broad basis, including Russia. In the long term, the presence of the NATO troops would only be stabilizing "if the government in Jerusalem makes concessions to their neighbors and the Palestinians." The paper concludes that "without pressure from Washington that seems unthinkable. The military securing of southern Lebanon must be accompanied by a US peace offensive for the region. A NATO mission in the Middle East only makes sense with this as a precondition."

The left-wing Tageszeitung writes that the concept of a cease-fire is usually a cessation of hostilities to provide the opposing parties with some breathing space. It doesn’t take away the political causes of the conflict "but makes a peaceful resolution easier." This is how the European media understand the call for an immediate cease-fire in the Middle East. For the Israeli government, the US and Britain, "the concept of cease-fire is completely different." There will only be negotiations for a cease-fire when Israel has achieved its war aims, "the defeat of Hezbollah and the military control of southern Lebanon." The cease-fire thus "seals the capitulation and makes later negotiations superfluous." The experience up to now of asymmetric warfare makes it doubtful if Israel can achieve its war aims against Hezbollah. The paper concludes that "only a fair, two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians can open the way to a lasting peace -- and to peace with Hezbollah."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes that although there is no sign of the fighting easing off, "two weeks after the war started, the serious political efforts to end the Lebanon crisis have gotten under way." The paper writes that "the most important element of a solution has crystallized around the idea of stationing international troops in southern Lebanon." The paper argues that while this is "neither particularly new nor original … the plan is nevertheless correct." There are, however, good arguments against such a force. "In the worst case scenario it could end in Hezbollah pushing into the buffer zone, firing rockets at Israel and attacking the peacekeeping soldiers. Israel hits back, and the foreign troops are caught in the cross fire." The paper argues that this could happen but it doesn't have to. It should be possible for "well-armed international troops, who are allowed to carry out their duties by force if necessary, to keep Hezbollah in check." However, it is still unclear whether, under what conditions and with what duties such a peacekeeping force would be deployed and if it could evenensure peace. Nevertheless, "the fact that the debate about it has begun is a step forward," the paper concludes.