February 9, 2009 | 1:32 am

After Daniel Pearl: Does the world accept evil?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow JewishJournal.com on

As he did last year, Judea Pearl penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on the anniversary of his son’s murder in Pakistan at the hands of Islamic terrorists. This year, Pearl, who is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, which brings Muslim journalists to The Jewish Journal for a week at a time, asks: “Would Danny have believed that today’s world emerged after his tragedy?”

Pearl writes:

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.

Read the rest here.