Egypt’s Bid for U.S. Apology

In response to the article (Editorial Pages, Oct. 16), “Egypt Is Out on a Limb--and Angry,” by Hamdi Saleh, it should be noted that his suggestions for American sympathy and an apology from President Reagan is contradictory to the hard-line, however necessary, policy our government has taken in response to terrorists and terrorism. While we are all thankful for the desire on the part of the Egyptians to help in an international crisis, which we can be confident in assuming that it helped save lives, it was not their right to decide the fate of the criminals they harbored and attempted to free.

The fact remains that the hijackers of the Achille Lauro are, by legal terms, suspected of hijacking and murder of the first degree and should stand trial for their crimes. Egypt’s decision reverts back to the weak philosophy of short-term solutions to long-term problems of terrorism. American law and Reagan’s philosophy, based on deterrent solutions to crimes by enacting stiff penalties, may not resolve all present problems, but it will reduce the number and extent of future crimes.

In essence, Egypt attempted to feed the terrorists their greatest ambitions, offering them the opportunity to attract worldwide attention regarding their political movement and protests through terrorist action, then permitting them to go free as if receiving overwhelming public support for their actions.

Saleh and others like him must realize that while Reagan’s plan was strongly supported by the American people, it also included a consistent and wise philosophy behind it, attempting to minimize such incidents in the future.

Yes, Egypt did go out on a limb; but for whom? Certainly not for justice, the American people, allies, or for the noble attempt to stop or even diminish terrorism. If you bargain with terrorists, terrorism will prevail as a solution to all dissatisfied groups and individuals. Governments should accept the responsibility to act accordingly.

JERRY CREWS

Santa Ana