Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil

Politics International Politics
1

Daniel Pearl…this week marks 7 years since the world saw what terrorists aw willing to do. His murderer is in prison. Caught in a quasi-legal limbo that allows him to be considered a ‘folk-hero’ while many would think it better to see him released from Gitmo.
The Father of Daniel Pearl speaks of what he sees that has transpired.

[quote]Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil
JUDEA PEARL, FEBRUARY 2, 2009, 11:37 P.M. ET

When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today’s world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of “the resistance.” Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the history of man’s inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words “war on terror” cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism – the ideological license to elevate one’s grievances above the norms of civilized society – was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable “tactical” considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man’s second nature. “In an unfair balance, that’s what people use,” explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel.” Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter’s logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas’s rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: “They should end the occupation.” In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society’s role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera’s management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn’t seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a “resistance” movement, together with honorary membership in PBS’s imaginary “cycle of violence.” In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that “each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression.” He then stated – without blushing – that for readers of the Hebrew Bible “God-soaked violence became genetically coded.” The “cycle of violence” platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror’s victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas – the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains – to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,” to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph – another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny’s picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Mr. Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, founded in memory of his son to promote cross-cultural understanding.
online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html[/quote]

A Fathers torment. A worlds cancer.

2

TC, I don’t know what it is about your posts but after I finish reading one of them I have this irresistible desire to eat a box of popcorn and equate the Geneva Conventions with international terrorism.

3

Bush is bad.
Bush hates terrorists.
I hate Bush.
Therefore, terrorists must be good.

It is very simple.

4

A beautiful essay. Thanks for posting it, TC; I find it approps.

5

And mistaken. Carter’s withdrawn and repudiated the passage quoted, apologizing publicly and repeatedly.

6

Why post an attempt at discrediting the entire article of Daniels Pearls Father by posting Pres. Carters after-the-fact hand-washing?

Lets see a time frame on Pres. Carters withdrawal of the passage in question.
Maybe a link?

In another thread.

7

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Why post an attempt at discrediting the entire article of Daniels Pearls Father by posting Pres. Carters after-the-fact hand-washing?

Lets see a time frame on Pres. Carters withdrawal of the passage in question.
Maybe a link?[/quote]

An account of one instance of that apology can be read here. That particular talk was available as a podcast (and I have it saved and can share it with anyone interested – the apology occurs at the 24 min mark).

[quote=“BBS: 2007-01-24”] Jimmy Carter signed autographs today in a Harvard bookstore before delivering remarks and answers to questions at Brandeis University yesterday. Reuters broke the story about the apology. According to the Washington Post Carter apologized for a passage in his book during the question period at the Brandeis speech:

"In particular, some students challenged Carter on a sentence that has brought him much grief. On Page 213 of his book, Carter wrote: 'It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.'

[b]This sentence, the students noted, suggests that suicide bombings are a tactic of war, to be suspended only when peace is achieved. Carter agreed -- and apologized -- and said this sentence was a great mistake on his part.

'The sentence was worded in an absolutely improper and stupid way,' Carter said. 'I apologize to you and to everyone here . . . it was a mistake on my part.'

He added that Palestinians who embrace terrorism draw no support from him. Calls for the destruction of Israel, he said, 'are completely obnoxious to me. I would have no brief for them and no sympathy for them.'[/b]"[/quote]

Why attempt to discredit the article? There’s no need to ‘discredit’ the article.
The article is written with the passion of a bereaved father who has become an advocate. His pain and loss ought to be respected; that does not mean his argument should be accepted at face value, particularly when crucial aspects are wrong or poorly supported.

[quote]I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism – the ideological license to elevate one’s grievances above the norms of civilized society – was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable “tactical” considerations.[/quote]Rhetorically appealing but obviously mistaken.

[quote]This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man’s second nature. “In an unfair balance, that’s what people use,” explained Mr. Livingstone.[/quote]Livingstone was right: desperate people resort to desperate means. That’s not a “mentality of surrender”, it’s a nasty fact. Even Churchill wondered if English patriots might not resort to suicide tactics if German tanks landed on British beaches.

Much of the rest of the article shapes words and facts to the author’s purpose. That’s fine. Mistaken in points, and certainly not to be swallowed whole, but reflective of his pain and ends. I respect where he’s coming from, but not all of his logic, nor his ends.

8

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The Father of Daniel Pearl speaks of what he sees that has transpired. . .

For good reason. Because the words “war on terror” were coined and have been used skillfully and repeatedly in dishonest, intentional efforts to deceive the people and commit wrongful acts. Surely Mr. Pearl should be bright enough to recognize that.

[quote]The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a “war on terror” and calling for a “culture of legislative restraint” in passing laws to deal with terrorism.

Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a “fear-driven and inappropriate” response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law. . .

Sir Ken pointed to the rhetoric around the “war on terror” - which has been adopted by Tony Blair and ministers after being coined by George Bush - to illustrate the risks.

He said: "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ‘soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a ‘war on terror’, just as there can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’.

“The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”

Sir Ken, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, told members of the Criminal Bar Association it should be an article of faith that crimes of terrorism are dealt with by criminal justice and that a “culture of legislative restraint in the area of terrorist crime is central to the existence of an efficient and human rights compatible process”.[/quote]
guardian.co.uk/politics/2007 … .terrorism

[quote]British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is currently visiting Rahul Gandhi’s parliamentary constituency in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, has described the use of the ‘war on terror’ as a western rallying cry, and added that it has been a mistake, and may have caused ‘more harm than good’. . .

Miliband says the war on terror was misconceived and that the West cannot “kill its way” out of the threats it faces.

In remarks that will also be made in a speech today in Mumbai, in one of the hotels that was a target of the terrorist attacks in November, Miliband says the concept of a war on terror is “misleading and mistaken”. . .

“The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common,” Miliband argues, in a clear criticism of the rhetoric of the Bush era.

“We should expose their claim to a compelling and overarching explanation and narrative as the lie that it is. Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology,” he adds.

He goes on to say that "democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it. [/quote]
newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-75385.html

[quote]Obama wages quiet war on Bush’s terror-speak

The “War on Terror” is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations. . .

the phrase “became associated in the minds of many people outside the United States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. . .

Now, he said, there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups - ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.

The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric “which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture.”[/quote]
hurriyet.com.tr/english/worl … .asp?scr=1

[quote]Sometimes a slogan or turn of phrase acquires so much political weight that it endures well after its original meaning has been exhausted. Such was the career of Republican appeals, beginning in the late 1970s, to “small government” or “limited government.” And that, too, is what has happened to the phrase “war on terror” that grew out of the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Ever since September 11, the administration has continued to make the “war on terror” the rhetorical centerpiece of its foreign policy. . .

What was once the war against terror should not be ignored, but it should be redefined as a police and intelligence operation. It still demands considerable resources, and vigilance, but it can no longer be seen as central to American foreign and military policy. . .

The United States faces a whole set of regional conflicts, none of which can simply be subsumed under the war on terror. . . .What could conceivably be called the “war on terror” is only one among several challenges and not the, or even a, central one. . .

Bush’s evocation of the war on terror helped the Republicans win in 2002 and aided his own re-election in 2004, but it also blinded Americans, and perhaps Bush himself, to what was and wasn’t really at stake in Iraq. And it led to a massive neglect of large parts of the globe. . . [/quote][/quote]
carnegieendowment.org/public … &proj=zusr

9

What happened to Daniel Pearl was atrocious, but then there’s a hell of a lot of that going on today and I can see the idea (if it were to be made) that the world seems a more brutal world – i.e., a world in which brutality has gained wider acceptance. But when the matter turns to Israel and the Palestinians, I don’t see a pure “right” side anymore. I grew up with the New York City area newspapers, which put sympathetic stories about Israel, the peace process, etc. on the front page of all the dailies (except the New York Post, which liked to run huge headlines instead about Islanders’ Stanley Cup wins and inner-city madness), and so there was a time when the PLO and its airline-hijacking unkempt baddies were the story of the day.

But we get to the present world in which both the Jews and Palestinians within Israel are doing horrible things to one another. If these guys were kids, I’d tell them I don’t care WHO started it – they both have to take a timeout. Neither has a normal life anymore, and it’s both their damn faults at this point. Both practice indisciminate killing of civilians, both justify it based on their political objectives (Hamas fires randomly into populated neighborhoods, Israel doesn’t care if they have to flatten a block of housing just to get one assassination target). And so they’ve got the well-acknowledged cycle of violence in which both sides can point to and recruit from the injustices perpetrated by one against the other. The idea that a society built by holocaust survivors could visit upon their fellow humankind the sorts of ghetto-like conditions that they, themselves, had suffered under the Nazis in Europe is a sign of the screwed-up mentalities going on there. That the Palestinians, left frequently enough without access to clean water, electricity, basic sanitation, access to hospitals or even the ability to cross closed checkpoints to get to work might have been pushed to their mental breaking point hasn’t occurred to anyone? They’re both nuts at this point.

So there’s an unbalanced panel of allegedly pro-Palestinian academics at UCLA that said Israel abuses human rights? Well, they do. So does the decrepit group of Hamas that calls itself the govenment of the Palestinian territories. Yes, they all suck on that score. And thanks to the same newspapers I grew up with, there is media that will report on unbalanced basis the Israeli side of things to the American public. And, lest there be any question about it – yes, the United States has, until only very recently, been pursuing an aggressive policy of abusing human rights. And so do the Chinese. And so do a bunch of other nations. So we find ourselves in a bit of a mess.

The title of Daniel Pearl’s father’s commentary piece indicates that he doesn’t like the “normalization” of horrible things happening – the kinds of horrible things that happened to his son, for example. And then he goes on a jingoistic rant in which he expresses shock that Israel might possibly, ever not be seen as a white knight of human rights protection? While respecting his tremendous loss, I don’t agree with him, and I don’t think using his son’s name makes his arguments any stronger.

10

:bravo: Well said, mofangongren.

The hocus in that piece is all too transparent. Sure I pity the guy, as I do anyone who has had a loved one cut down needlessly by violence, but right now on the crudest possible measure, the israelis are far and beyond the main dishers out of misery in the region, and it’s just all so pointless.

Having just listened to a very good podcast from the author of Why Vietnam matters this reminded me of the futility the author of that book mentions in regards the flattening of District Eight in Saigon during the Tet offensive. The author connects events such as this to failings in Iraq and Afghanistan, and notes attempts to address these. I don’t see any such willingness on the side of the Israelis.

You can catch the podcast of Why Vietnam matters right here.

HG