MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - Like any war, the conflict in the Middle East does not bring out the best in people. It does not matter whether they are at the front lines or following the war on TV, or covering it.
Characteristically, my colleagues, especially those who are not very young, are not following the government's instructions.
The official Russian position is objective enough and coincides with the European stand. Most journalists, on the other hand, are guided by what was called "the need of one's heart" in the Soviet years. The same obsolete Soviet jargon is creeping into some commentaries on the Middle East. Recently, I have read about "the Israeli militarists," "Israeli imperialism" (it is tempting to give one of these pundits a globe), and "Israeli serial killers". This is not to mention the enthusiasm with which the same authors are whitewashing Hamas and Hezbollah.
I'm not a supporter of Israel, but I'm against bias. What has happened in reality is that the Lebanese people have found themselves hostage to the war between Israel and Hezbollah. To some extent this war reminds me of the tragic situation in Budennovsk in 1995, where the terrorists, led by Shamil Basayev, concealed themselves behind pregnant women. The majority of the latter had nothing to do with Chechnya. Our special forces started assaults only to stop them shortly after. I remember the public supported the decision of the authorities, who let the terrorists go to save the hostages. Later on, we had to pay a very high price: the Nord-Ost theatre hostage crisis, blasts of multi-storey buildings, and, finally, Beslan, a tragedy that makes everything else pale in comparison. Today, having amassed more experience, the Russian people have a different memory of Budennovsk. Russia has also changed its approach to terrorism - it is enough to mention Nord-Ost.
I am not saying that this approach is completely right. It is not for human beings to decide who deserves to be sacrificed in the anti-terrorist struggle. I think, however, that all of the above fully applies to Israel, which had faced the same dilemma long before Russia - to attack or not to attack, to risk the lives of civilians in order to kill the terrorist behind their backs or let them live but doom others to death.
Israel has made its choice. This does not mean that we should defend Israel's actions - simply understand it as a bow to objectivity. The tragedy in Lebanon differs from Budennovsk only in the scale of the operation, which has drawn in the army by virtue of circumstances. No special forces are able to fight terrorists if they are armed to the teeth with portable rockets, and, moreover, have integrated into the political system of a neighboring state.
The city of Grozny was reduced to ruins not because the Russians wanted it to be, but because the federal forces were opposed by a cruel, cynical, and smart enemy with advanced skills in psychological warfare. The same is now happening in the Middle East: first comes provocation; then the terrorists conceal themselves behind women and children; finally, reporters are called in to cover the situation.
Those who are demanding an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East today are probably right - just like those who prevented the special forces from assaulting the Budennovsk hospital. But he that spares the bad injures the good, and all these kindly souls should be held responsible for Hezbollah's future crimes. But the problem is that they will not be held responsible. Chernomyrdin or Yeltsin will never be taken to task for Beslan. In much the same manner, the current peacemakers and critics of Israel will not be blamed for Hezbollah's future victims.
In the meantime, the Israeli government will answer tomorrow for any mistake today. This is the only difference, but this difference puts them at opposite poles. Some have to make a life-and-death decision and be accountable for it, whereas others act with amazing ease. Not responsible for anything, they are ready to lecture the rest of the world, and are generally "warm and fuzzy".
The loss of life is awful, and the whole situation is desperate. Regrettably, in the near future the conflict may have only a temporary solution, which cannot be good by definition. At any rate, I do not see any positive outcomes. Maybe someone else can describe one for you.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
