Op Ed by Judea Pearl

Friends,
The op-ed by Daniel Pearl's father Judea hits the nail on the head. Evil is
now an acceptable means to an end. With supporters of barbarism like Jimmy
Carter, a former President of the free world, airing his opinions freely and
shamelessly, every decent human being must be vigilant. Do not quietly
acquiesce to this new order that is taking over the world, as it did in the
Nazi era. They said "they didn't know." But we know, don't we?

Now is the time for all good men and women to take a public stand.

Naomi Ragen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

• FEBRUARY 2, 2009, 11:37 P.M. ET

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil
When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

By JUDEA PEARL

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.