Our Hostages in Lebanon
Former Sen. James Abourezk’s (D-S.D.) article (Editorial Pages, Oct. 1), “What About Our Hostages in Lebanon?” reads more like a parody than a serious article. Through tortured logic, Abourezk manages to convince himself--if no one else--that by being firm and resolute in the face of terror, American foreign policy has encouraged hostage-taking in Lebanon. Because America has “burned too many bridges in the Arab world” those who might otherwise be sympathetic and helpful to us have turned a deaf ear.
Abourezk’s convoluted reasoning is combined with chutzpah. The authorities he cites for his thesis are Syrian President Hafez Assad, and his vice president, Abdul Halim Khaddam--the leaders of one of the world’s most pro-Soviet, anti-Western regimes linked to terror throughout Europe and the Middle East.
To further buttress his assertion, he quotes from Nabih Berri, the head of the Shia military force, Amal. Berri’s teen-age followers have blown themselves and their Lebanese opponents up on numerous occasions. Quite an expert on countering terror!
Does Abourezk seriously think that any individual even partially cognizant of what has been going on in the world for the past 20 years, could buy his thesis? Does he really believe that a Soviet client state, Syria, would expend its energies to free American hostages and promote peace if “only we were a little nicer to them?”
The days of acquiescing to blackmail and extortion are over, and Abourezk isn’t pleased. Resolute and unequivocating resistance to terror must be our policy or we will all soon be hostages.
DAVID A. LEHRER
Los Angeles
Lehrer is regional director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
