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 Mohammad, 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
managaeble “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 has 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 4-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 is 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.