Hafez Assad

With an amazing amount of chutzpah, Stanley Sheinbaum makes his case for the United States bending over backwards in its attempt to bring Syrian President Hafez Assad to the peace table (Commentary, Dec. 1).

He claims that the new regional economic development bank should have been located in Damascus. I suppose that this step would certainly give hope to the peace process in that a dictator of a country that refuses to talk directly to Israel and is involved in funding terrorist strikes in Lebanon and in Israel would have influence over monies spent in the region.

He laments that having Assad meet Israelis directly would be demeaning. I suppose that Anwar Sadat, King Hussein and even Yasser Arafat were demeaned by meeting Israelis face to face. It is the measure of a leader to take the risks necessary in order to make peace.

I’m sorry, Mr. Sheinbaum, but your methods are misplaced and would be tantamount to granting Assad something which he hasn’t earned--and that is the image of a regional leader.

WILLIAM M. BENDER

Granada Hills

*

* Sheinbaum states that he knows “that he [Assad] will not deal with Israel directly. Given his desire to be seen as the leader of the Arab world, that would be demeaning.” This speaks volumes about a man whom Sheinbaum thinks America should court. What kind of peace-loving man is Assad, who refuses to even speak directly with his enemies? Additionally, I thought that the Middle East was “blooming with peace”; if so, why would it be demeaning for Assad as “the leader of the Arab world” to deal with Israel directly?

MATTI WOLFBERG

Santa Monica