Most of the international community wants an immediate ceasefire, writes Denis Staunton
The Bush administration's unequivocal support for Israel's continuing military campaign in Lebanon has put Washington at odds with its European allies, the UN secretary-general and most Middle Eastern governments.
Most of the international community wants an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hizbullah, but the US insists that such a step is premature as long as Hizbullah retains the capacity to attack Israel.
"The simple reflexive action of asking for a ceasefire is not something that's really appropriate in a situation like this. How do you get a ceasefire with a terrorist organisation? I'm not sure anybody's ever done that before, and I'm not sure it's possible," US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said this week.
Divisions between Washington and its allies could deepen if Israel launches a substantial land offensive in Lebanon, aimed at disarming Hizbullah in the south of the country and pushing the Islamist group further north, so that its rockets cannot reach Israeli targets.
The delay in secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's visit to the region, now expected this weekend or early next week, is seen in Washington as offering Israel time to weaken Hizbullah further before declaring a ceasefire.
European governments view such a delay as potentially catastrophic, warning that more attacks on civilians from either side can only inflame the conflict further.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour warned this week that Israel's bombardment of Lebanese cities and Hizbullah's shelling of Israeli cities could qualify as war crimes.
"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities. This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity . . .
"The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control," she said.
The Bush administration's support for Israel is popular among Americans, and politicians from both parties have given overwhelming backing to resolutions supporting the Israeli action in Lebanon and condemning Hizbullah.
Israel's supporters in the US can feel confident that, with congressional elections looming in November, few politicians will depart from the consensus on the Middle East.
Washington is heading for a further confrontation with its allies over the role and status of the international force which UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Britain's Tony Blair have proposed for Lebanon.
The US favours sending a multilateral force, such as that now deployed in Afghanistan, as opposed to a UN peacekeeping force such as those in Congo and Liberia. Washington believes that the force should be authorised by the UN but led by a single country, with command eventually turned over to an international body such as Nato.
Some countries favour a UN force, which they believe would enjoy greater legitimacy within the Arab world, although UN sources said that contributing countries were unlikely to allow their forces to serve under UN command in such a dangerous mission. There is little support at the UN for any role for Nato in such a force.
There could be more disagreement over the proposed force's role, with Washington supporting a robust mandate to disarm Hizbullah and Europeans favouring a more passive mission aimed at preventing Hizbullah from attacking Israel.
Diplomatic sources report unease and frustration within the UN over Washington's role in blocking any resolution which would criticise Israel's action in Lebanon or call for greater care to avoid civilian casualties.