Continued from No 16 (19)

Now, let us speak on how the situation in the Middle East is looked upon in the world. Not long ago, when I was in Israel, a bus with children got under fire. It was next in turn "a deed of Palestinian fighters for freedom". The world mass media, as always in such cases, correctly informed that the "school bus was damaged". No reason to wonder, it is a usual thing when Jews are killed. The Israeli TV showed the live picture from hospital where wounded children were treated after this incident. One girl (her brother was wounded too) whose leg was amputated said to the reporter: "We are beging killed and the whole world hates us". I can add nothing to the words of this child. What is the real attitude of the "civilized world" to what happens in the Middle East? Here is it. The UN representatives in the Middle East have recently stated that, on the whole, they consider the activities of FATH, HAMAS and "Islamic dzhihad" to be national liberation struggle and not terrorism. The of Canadian Foreign Minister John Menly said that it was an essential difference between what was happening in Israel and the tragedy in the USA. I wonder how many more Jews should perish from hands of terrorists to make the respected Minister feel the similarity between the events in these two countries.

Of the same nature is the decision of American administration to include the movements KAKH and "Kakhane Hai" into the list of terrorist organizations. The list was compiled after the act of terrorism at the World Trade Center in New York.

No doubt, they are ultra-rightist movements but they do not practice violence and do not consider it as a means of reaching their aims. There is not logical to include these movements in same row with HAMAS and "Al-Kaida", and compare their members with Ben Laden. Let you remind that the founder of the KAH movement was rabbi Meir Kakhane killed in the USA by Arab terrorist more that 10 year ago. His son Binjamin-Zeyev Kakhane and his wife were killed less than a year ago by Palestinian militants.

How can one explain the position of the USA, the country that took the burden of the chief fighter against international terrorism? I my opinion, the Middle East problems do not occupy first places in the US priorities system. For the USA, as well as during the operation "Storm in the desert", the first priority is to unite, this time, the anti-terrorist coalition in which each member has its own interest. Besides, Americans need by all means to preserve the loyalty of Islamic world. It is quite possible that Afghanistan is far from being the only country for military operations of this coalition. Problems may arise. For example, Lebanon and Egypt refused to block bank accounts of organizations, which the USA considers to have relations with terrorism. As to the Jewish State, Americans should not worry about its loyalty. It is given to them under any circumstances. This explains the pressure of the White House upon Israel to take army troops away from the territory controlled by Arafat even if the acts of terrorism continue. However, the troops came there as part of antiterrorist operation, of course, of a smaller scale.

The USA and its President are busy with other problems now. Israel, as it was during the anti-Iraq campaign, again can become the hostage of the situation, a playing card in the fascinating game with large stakes called "The big Game". It is natural that the USA, as any other descent state, pursues its own interests. But not always the interests of even very close partners fully coincide. I think it is appropriate now to spell the words said by Rehabaam Zeyevy, who perished not long ago: "One can beg protection from the strongest".

Now, let us come back to our country and see what response had the American tragedy in Ukraine. One can say there were different opinions. Some expressed sympathy but in some TV programs there were statements that America was guilty itself, and then the proofs were followed. Depending on erudition of speakers, different reasons were said - Hiroshima, Vietnam, Serbia, etc. It was strange that Indians and lynched Negroes were not mentioned. It was thought that thousands of people perished under the ruins of the sky-scrapes were to answer for all this. One woman who rang up to the TV studio said that she knew who were behind the act of terrorism. According to her it was only to ask one question "Who benefits from this?"

Please, dear readers, guess from the first attempt who would benefit. No problem to answer. Of course, Jews. No comments so far.

Of certain interest is the opinion of Vladimir Malinkovich. He thinks that terrorists also have their own opinion, outlook, and they shouldn't be fought but negotiated. This reminds me one quotation from E. Shvarts' play: "When his beloved wife was being strangled, he stood nearby saying: "Wait a bit, may be everything will be all right"". In general, the tolerance to a strange outlook is, no doubt, a gook thing, if it is not brought up to the absurd. I don't believe that one can negotiate with anyone, including a terrorist. Why don't Americans sit at the negotiation table with Ben Laden? I think he will be satisfied with the hand-over to him the western bank of the Mississippi and eastern districts of New York. They would come to an agreement.

If seriously, innocent people suffer first because of the war. But who cares for them?