The United States, too, is increasingly feeling the weight of international dismay at the scale of Israel's war on Lebanon, which European Commission Vice-President Margot Wallstrom described as "shocking" and "unacceptable."

The surprise display of European unity at emergency talks Tuesday follows the deaths of about 56 Lebanese civilians, at least 37 of them children, in an Israeli airstrike on the southern village of Qana Sunday.

While EU foreign ministers called for an "immediate cessation of hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire," as opposed to an "immediate cease-fire," the EU presidency is at pains to stress that the difference was only one of semantics.

Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency, said following the talks that from the point of view of those caught up in the conflict, there was "no difference."

"The most important thing is that no weapons will be fired, no people will be under fire," he told a press conference.

The block is proposing an immediate halt to fighting on both sides, followed by negotiations leading to a permanent settlement and cease-fire. This would then be followed by the deployment of an international stabilization force in southern Lebanon that would bolster the Lebanese army.

But the presidency's entreaty for an end to hostilities "in a matter of days rather than weeks" is likely to fall on deaf ears. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the BBC Wednesday that Jerusalem would not call a halt to the offensive until an international peacekeeping force was on the ground, a deployment which will take several weeks at best. Far from scaling down its campaign, the Jewish state vowed Tuesday to widen its ground offensive, intending -- according to Israeli media -- to push militants back to the Litani river, up to 18 miles north of the border.

The European Union insists that it is now united in its position on the conflict, following weeks of disagreement over the urgency of a cease-fire.

However the omission of the phrase "immediate cease-fire" from Tuesday's declaration hints at the divisions remaining within the bloc. It is understood that it was removed at the behest of Britain, backed by Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark -- the United States' closest allies in the union.

Nevertheless Britain's willingness to endorse a call for an immediate halt to hostilities -- a cease-fire in all but name -- marks a small but crucial shift of position. British Prime Minister Tony Blair appears to be succumbing to domestic pressure to alter his approach to the conflict, which has infuriated many within his own party.

The government is increasingly split over the appropriate strategy, with many senior figures urging the prime minister to take a tougher line against Israel.

According to a ministerial source quoted by the BBC, senior Foreign Office officials acting on behalf of Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett tried "strenuously" to persuade Downing Street to press Washington for an immediate cease-fire. Officials had wanted Blair to use his visit to Washington Friday to push the cease-fire case, but their calls were rebuffed.

Referring to the Qana massacre, Beckett herself said Monday that she had been "warning privately for days" of a "terrible tragedy" should the fighting continue.

The foreign secretary also urged a suspension of all U.S. flights carrying military equipment to Israel through British airports while the hostilities continued, but her concerns were rejected by Downing Street.

Neither is Beckett the only Cabinet minister disturbed by Blair's stance on the conflict.

Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons and the former foreign secretary, took the highly unusual step of speaking out publicly against Israel's operations Saturday, describing the offensive as "disproportionate." According to Channel 4 News, he made the stand following a call from United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who beseeched him to help "in prizing Tony Blair apart from George Bush."

Annan telephoned Straw just hours after Israeli strikes killed four U.N. peacekeepers Wednesday, reportedly "distraught" at Blair's decision to side with the United States in refusing to call for an immediate cease-fire.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn has also made his concerns public, while Education Secretary David Miliband was widely reported to have raised objections to Downing Street's position at last week's Cabinet meeting.

But the source revealed that the split within the Cabinet was greater than previously known, disclosing that one or more other ministers had passed notes to Blair at the meeting "saying that he should not take their silence as consent for this policy."

The British endorsement of the EU declaration may also indicate a softening of the U.S. position. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday she would seek a U.N. resolution calling for a cease-fire this week. Following the Qana killings, there appears to be a growing awareness in Washington of the damage to relations between the West and the Muslim world, and anxiety about the conflict's impact on the "war on terror" as a whole.

But there remains a substantial question mark over whether Israel will bow to international pressure for a cease-fire. Olmert flatly dismissed Rice's suggestion of a cease-fire this week, demarcating the limits of even U.S. influence on the Jewish state.

The European Union is adamant that its influence will be felt at the U.N. Security Council, on which five EU states are represented. "Our voice will be heard in the movement towards a resolution," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said follwoing the talks.

However, even if the Security Council agrees a resolution calling for a cease-fire, there is no guarantee that Israel will take notice. For all its rhetoric over the need to implement Resolution 1559 in Lebanon, Israel has never viewed international law as something it too needs to abide by, as evidenced by more than 50 U.N. resolutions that it has ignored since seizing the Occupied Territories in 1967. Hopes that it will now simply halt operations it views as essential to its security at the bidding of the international community may be merely wishful thinking.

Related Links
Your World At War