“Normalization of Evil” – Excerpts
Brief excerpts from a thought-provoking article by Judea Pearl, Professor of Computer Science at UCLA and father of WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl who was murdered in 2002.
*** Excerpts Begin ***
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?
…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.”
…somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society…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…
…But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter….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…
…(At the time of)…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.
…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.
*** End of Excerpts ***
Related Post: Fascinating: Terrorism and Public Opinion in PakistanÂ
Concluding sentence from “The reality of radical Islam” by Nitin
Dear Shantanu
I agree with the idea that terrorism is a great and unmitigated evil. I particularly agree when religious motives propel murder.
However, this is a complex matter which can’t be simplified the way the writer/s have chosen to.
I’ve not researched the Israel-Palestine conflict in detail but for over 50 years India has held the (official) view that Palestine is the victimised party in a geographical battle (occupation). I was brainwashed (if that is the word) through the Indian government and media that this is a geographical battle, not a religious battle. I think there is some merit in this view (not in the killings! – but in this view of the overall nature of the problem).
I note that some Indians have started extending the religious infighting in India more broadly to an all-Islam battle, which means that the Palestine conflict is now seen as a religious battle against Jews, not a geographical one for territory.
I would strongly caution against giving support to such simplistic, one-sided views.
If Islamic people had started a universal jihad against the entire non-Islamic people, we would have seen the killing of ALL non-Islamic people in all parts of Islamic world, including Indonesia, or in India. Yes, the Indonesian (Bali) bombings which killed over 200 people had a clear anti-nonMuslim flavour. But it was motivated by a few madmen. Do you sense the same fervour against non-Islamic people across the board? I doubt it; else the daily death toll would be in the millions, not a handful here or there.
Thus, where a specific geographical issue is involved – a matter of land and nation – the matter gets much more complex.
Would you say that Bhagat Singh was part of a Sikh crusade against Christianity (when he killed a British officer)? We know that he had in mind a national (ie. geographical) idea, no matter how misguided his method. He is known even today to every Indian child as a FREEDOM FIGHTER. And I agree he was (though I believe the methods he used were arguably premature, uncalled for at that stage, and not supported by the wide public; hence potentially illegitimate under the theory of freedom).
There is a very fine line between religious terrorism and geographical (national) terrorism/’freedom fighting’. Most people are confused about this basic distinction.
When a state becomes an oppressor or a foreign power an occupier, the people may (indeed SHOULD) consider a range of steps, including – in the end and if inevitable – armed rebellion. This option is not to be chosen lightly, but it IS an option available to all of humanity.
I am not an expert on the specific issue here (Israel-Palestine) but I do know it is NOT a Jew-Muslim issue, else Muslims would have been killing Jews since Mohammed, but they have lived, for the most part, peacefully together (it was the Christians who had this great problem with Jews which came to a head in Nazi Germany. This persecution of Jews was a common phenomenon in the Christian dominated West till recently).
–extract from my draft manuscript ‘The Discovery of Freedom–
[I]n 1543 [Martin Luther] wrote a book, ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’ which, historians tell us, had a great impact in building an atmosphere of hatred of Jews. In that book Luther asked that synagogues be set on fire and the Jews be got rid of. Hitler, whether out of his Christian upbringing or other reason (irrelevant for this book), put all this into practice a few hundred years later. Hitler and his Nazis exploited this hatred to massacre millions of Jews.
—end of extract —
The Ottoman empire showed us that Islam can largely accommodate a range of other religious – albeit by other people paying a tax. Islam has not declared war against all other religions, as far as I know. There are a handful of madmen like Osama, but not the entire religion.
— section from my draft book, The Discovery of Freedom
After the death of Mohammed in 632 AD the Caliph Omar decided that ‘while in Arabia itself there must be one religion, in the rest of the world submission, as shown by the material token of tribute, was to be sufficient.’ This meant that the Islamic Arabic army that conquered Persia in 651 AD allowed the Zoroastrians and pagans to purchase tolerance by paying a tax, the jaziya. Greek pagans, persecuted by Christians both in Europe and the Byzantine, but allowed to live and study their ancient texts by Muslims as long as they paid this tax, chose to live on in Persia. (As an aside, while many Zoroastrians moved to India in that period, a large number of them stayed put. Indeed, many Zoroastrians are still found in Iran, demonstrating the feasibility of purchasing tolerance in Islam – something that could not be done in the West).
— end of section —
Yes, by all means try to defeat ‘radical Islam’ – and kill off Osama and his gangs, but it would be wrong to claim that the democratically elected Hamas (no matter how abhorrent) is a religious body. It is a political (national) body, elected by the people; no matter how detestable its methods.
Let’s therefore not be swayed by silly people who simplify and mix up a range of complex issues because they have no underlying conception of the political world and the concepts of freedom and self-determination. They would deny the right of self-determination to an entire people in their blind and unthinking hatred towards an entire religion (in this case Islam).
There is thus a HUGE difference between the terrorism against US (which WAS religious, being broadbased, and clearly not related to land), and the regular battles in Palestine. I abhor the methods used by the Palestinians, and wish they had a Gandhi or Martin Luther King to solve their problems – for they are not earning any sympathy for their cause by their brutal methods.
However, I’m not willing to mix up the killing of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan with the daily mayhem committed in Palestine/Israel. The former was religious terrorism in the strict sense (in alleged sympathy for the Palestinians – which makes it religious terrorism since why were they not showing sympathy for other religious groups so oppressed – and the sympathy was not directly related to the land or nation of the killer). The latter is geographical terrorism.
Given your extensive knowledge of this issue, could you suggest an appropriate policy/stance for India to take on this difficult matter?
Personally, I don’t see the possibility of handing over a blank cheque to either side. The truth must be carefully documented and weighed. I would like the Palestinians to stop this mayhem and start using non-violent methods of protest. And so also the Israelis. Let them sit and talk, and immediately solve this long-drawn problem through compromise, given and take, and goodwill towards each other.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sanjeev: Very thought-provoking…I am no expert on this issue…but will try and pen my thoughts in a day or two.
Thanks.
@Sanjeev Sabhlok,
I concur with your arguments that the Israeli Palestinian issue is part geographic. However it is largely religious.
The single biggest reason why the issue is still being kept alive is because regional forces like Saudi arabia, Iran, formerly Iraq, Jordan and Egypt want to focus the attention of their population on an external tormentor aka the Jews.
This is largely done to prevent them from bringing any modicum of reform or advancement within their societies.
Also your statement that Jews and Muslims lived in peace after Mohammed’s death is not true.
What Shantanu (I’m not trying to put words in his mouth) is trying to convey is that the killing of the girl and Daniel Pearl while being similar abhorable murders stem from a primary motive of religious fundamentalists not tolerating other points of views. It is ridiculous to separate Islamic fundamentalism into separate items when they are the same.
There were five blind men who went to see an elephant.
There are other people than Islamists fighting the Israelis in Palestine. People from all over the world, following different ideologies, have fought the Israelis. Does a freedom movement movement become lessened because it is supported by people we dislike? Or, if you want this in a different manner, shall I say that Indian Independence won solely by the Indian National Congress? If you drive me out of my home, I will take the help of anyone who helps me. God is a Kalashnikov, and I don’t really care whether it is painted green or red.
And it is not like people own copyrights to heinous acts. Every civilization in this world is guilty of such. And in fact, us Asian and African barbarians, even in our heyday (even counting Timur – who before the siege of Baghdad had decreed a two-head quota for each soldier, which they were forced to fulfill by beheading prisoners taken earlier) have done nothing to equal the Europeans.
Heinous acts follow from a classification of humankind into them and us. The Hutus and the Americans put it very succinctly. Tutsis were called cockroaches, American soldiers in the good old days of Indian eradication (used in the same sense as malaria eradication) used to reason, “Nits grow into lice,” while blowing out the brains of Indian children.
@ Sanjeev: I believe that religion has now become part of the crisis in Israel and Palestine. It is of course not purely a religious conflict but we cannot overlook that angle…
Like you, I do not subscribe to the theory that Muslims have declared “universal jihad against the entire non-Islamic people”.
But I am not sure that there is such a fine line between religious terrorism and geographical (national) terrorism. Geographical terrorism is limited (and connected) to a specific territory…religious terrorism is not confined to any region and in that sense can have ramifications beyond national borders (and may therefore be very difficult to contain).
I will do some background research on Hamas but I feel it may be simplistic to call it just a “political (national) body”
***
@ Dirt Digger: Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
***
@ Jayadevan: Re. “If you drive me out of my home, I will take the help of anyone who helps me”, I think it were the Jews who were driven out of their homes; the Palestinians are very much in Israel (West Banak/ Gaza), isn’t it?
And yes, there are no copyrights on terror (terrorism) but that does not (should not) justify it.
I think both you and Sanjeev missed an important point that Judea had raised i.e. “the endorsement of “terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining”
Do you agree with that?
Dear Shantanu,
Jews came out of their homes in Europe, where they had been persecuted for centuries, where they are still persecuted, driven by the hope of finding their homeland, promised to them by their covenant with the Lord. Now the problem was that the diaspora had multiplied manifold, and that the land they wanted was already occupied by a mix of Jews, Muslims and Christians. So, naturally, the friction started. Read diatribes against the Bangladeshis or the Biharis, and you can find out that this resentment is universal. And, in the end, the whites owned the land, as usual. So you need to correct your perspective on the Palestinian situation. It was the Palestinians who were driven out. And, if you remember, there were people from all faiths fighting the Israelis. The PFLP leadership had quite a few Christians.
If I cannot afford a cruise missile or a drone, I will use a jacket stuffed with explosives. As long as violence is used and largely endorsed as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining, it is unfair to call one murder terror and the other war, just because the murderer wears a uniform. And since we recognized the role economics played in warfare, the emphasis has shifted to civilian targets. Remember carpet-bombing in Coventry (the word coventrieren became part of German) and payback in Dresden? Remember dambusting? Napalm? Agent Orange? Hiroshima? Afghanistan? Darfur? The fighting arm is only the spearhead, the shaft of the spear is the civilian manufacturing strength. All military strategy has recognized this, and propaganda to undermine civilian morale, and targeting of civilian, industrial and agricultural targets has always been of prime importance. So it is OK if I wear a uniform and fly a million dollar worth of hardware and electronics to wipe out a base of support for the enemy (civilian deaths are called collateral damage here)? And not OK if I concoct an explosive out of fertilizer and chemicals from the local hardware store? Would my child suffer any more if he was blown up by a suicide bomber than a cruise missile?
The need here, Shantanu, is to diminish the legitimacy of violence per se.
@ Jayadevan: I am guessing that you are deliberately juxtaposing two different things (terrorism and warfare) to make your larger point re. violence.
In an ideal world, there would be no violence. Sadly, that is unlikely to ever happen…
That does not mean that we equate the criminal with the uniformed combatant.
Yes, there is a difference between blowing up a child intentionally and causing the death of a child unintentionally…and there is a difference between a soldier and a terrorist…
I hope you can see the point I am making…In a system/environment with space and room for non-violent discourse and political bargaining, what can possibly justify terrorism?
Hope everyone can see the larger picture which is being played in the name of geographical war.
@Jayadevan
What must be our response to pakistan? Their soldiers came and killed innocents on 26/11. They came and blew up trains, places along with people numbers of times.
Shantanu,
Do we drop a bomb unintentionally? Can we actually believe that our bombs will not kill civilians, especially when we aim at civilian targets? Paul Tibbets on this issue:”That’s their tough luck for being there.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan
Are not most atrocities perpetrated by uniformed people? Were the SS, the Pakistani Army in Bangladesh and the Sudanese army formed of non-soldiers? What of the Jhanjhaveed – are they not a “patriotic militia fighting insurgency”? What is warfare but terror perpetrated on a larger scale? What conflict is there in the world that is not based on a foundation of falsehood? And, till now, the weapons the guys in uniform use are much more horrific than any the terrorist have used. Napalm, poison gas,cluster bombs.In the end, because only a soldier knows the horrors of war, he is the greatest pacifist. A little song.
http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore/drinkingsongs/mp3s/1970s/1972-we-say-no-to-your-war–the-covered-wagon-musicians/12-napalm-sticks-to-kids.htm
The civilian’s morbid fascination for violence deifies the combatant. We see only the starched uniforms, the stirring bands, the gleaming medals. Not for us the sight of burnt flesh dripping off a body, the systematic rapes, the arms of a mother flung over her children in a vain attempt to protect them from a hail of bullets. And war is anything but honourable.The latest updates:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7952603.stm
(This particular story comes out only because the Jews, culturally, are really into self-criticism. Imagine some other nation here, would this even merit mention?)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5962905.ece
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD97204S80
This is what happens in war. We refuse to acknowledge suffering because it is “they” who suffer and it is “our boys” causing the suffering.
Again, we notice, people do not turn to violence (I do not use the word terrorism) from day one. Even Churchill used to say, “Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War”. It is when you cannot bring your adversary to the table that you force him there, with whatever weapons you have. The Irgun, the IRA, the ETA, most independence movements, have been forced to resort to violence as they were denied a hearing/justice. Which, paradoxically, makes moral indignation and retaliation easier for the other party. Where is this space and room for non-violent discourse and political bargaining? Even in our domestic issues, can the small man make his voice heard? We are the only country in the world which has achieved independence by mainly non-violent means. But even this was helped along by the INA and the naval mutiny (would we call this namak-haraami?). When Gandhiji called off an agitation in full swing because of Chauri Chaura, didn’t we feel that he was a impractical fool?
It takes greater courage to be non-violent than to be violent. All violence, in the end, stems from a perceived threat, an encroachment on our space, an impulse to say this far and no further. We are afraid that humanity and magnanimity will be taken for cowardice, so we prejudge the adversary and decide on aggression as the first step. Thus, all violence,on the personal level or a national level, stems from fear. And is heinous, whether I am a Hamas suicide bomber, or a uniformed soldier, or a member of the civil society who eggs them on.
@Indian, who is at war here? This violence is staged for the benefit of a small coterie in Pakistan who need this to divert their people’s attention from the systematic pillage of their motherland. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/010998pakistan.html This is just one family. We all know how the military has a finger in every pie. Not to say that this doesn’t benefit quite a lot of people on this side too. There even is quite a bit of cooperation between the “people who matter” on both sides of the border. After all, the love of money and of self is a great unifying factor. Remember the HDW scandal and friend Zia helping Rajiv out of a fix by a little sabre-rattling? And the Jain havala scandal which had a wide spectrum of netas and terrorists frequenting the same ATM – and how it was given a hurried burial? And have you noticed that every time there is a chance of peace and understanding, something seems to happen? We have seen terrorist attacks, unprovoked brutality by the armed forces (mostly aimed at the moderates who are heading the movement towards normalcy). It is almost like there is a concerted attempt to keep the party going. Frankly speaking, given a chance, the people of India and Pakistan would like peace, more cross-border traffic and some of the money that goes to buy weapons and to line pockets build a few schools and save our children from starving to death. But when have the people ever counted for anything?
@ Jayadevan: Hurried response…(and I will have a look at the links later on)…but let us be real…Do you really believe all violence can be countered with non-violence?
How would you combat evil?
The last para of the blog article-
“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.”
Very painful words for any parent.
The numbers of such parents are increasing now as attested by the video here-
http://islamabadobserver.com/2009/04/20/taliban-slaughtering-accused-like-animals/
In comment no 2 Sabhlok unnecessarily drags Bhagat Singh in dirt.
>>>”Would you say that Bhagat Singh was part of a Sikh crusade against Christianity (when he killed a British officer)?
There is no justifiable reason to speculate so.
Does Sabhlok suggest that Bhagat Singh should have ascertained the religious beliefs of his oppressors and desisted from killing Christians among them lest he be seen as waging war against Christianity ?
By that logic Sabhlok should ask whether Gandhi was part of a Hindu Crusade against Christianity when he asked British to Quit India.
Was he ?
>>>” We know that he had in mind a national (ie. geographical) idea, no matter how misguided his method.”
How do you know that he only had a geographical idea about India?
How do you conclude that he did not have in mind the idea of India as a cultural and civilisational entity as meant by the term Mother India that gave birth to his cultural consciousness and nurtured in him a sense of respect for the civilisational ethos of this land and its heritage ?
How do you say that he considered India as only a geographic area ?
And why do you say “no matter how misguided his method” ?
Why do you judge his method to be ‘misguided‘ just because it is different from yours ?
Does he not have the freedom to choose a method that is different from yours ?
Is this the ‘freedom’ that you claim to be campaigning for ?
‘Freedom’ to condemn others’ methods as misguided and denying others the freedom to choose differently?
>>>” ..though I believe the methods he used were arguably premature,”
Why do you again judge his methods to be ‘arguably premature’ ?
Why do you deny him the freedom to have what you call ‘arguably premature’ methods ?
>>>” …uncalled for at that stage,”
What is ‘called for’ according to you may not be what is called for according to another. That is the spirit of democracy and freedom. Why do you deny that ?
>>>”.. and not supported by the wide public;”
So you mean to say that one should act only after getting support of wide public ?
So you will not act when you see an injustice being done unless you get support of ‘wide public’ ?
This mentality is called ‘mob mentality’.
>>>”.. hence potentially illegitimate under the theory of freedom.”
What is this ‘theory of freedom ‘ ?
When will you get out of ‘theorising’ about freedom and get on with ‘practising freedom’ ?
>>>”There is a very fine line between religious terrorism and geographical (national) terrorism /’freedom fighting’.
Most people are confused about this basic distinction.”
Talk about yourself. It is you who is confused.
It is people like you who are blinded by ‘theorising’ about freedom that sees ‘freedom fighters’ among the Kashmiri terrorists, northeast insurgents and naxals who use the same arguments of ‘fighting against persecution’ as used by Hamas and Hizbollah.
Yet find faults in the ‘methods’ of Bhagat Singh!
>>>”The Ottoman empire showed us that Islam can largely accommodate a range of other religious – albeit by other people paying a tax.”
Are you appreciating Ottoman empire for showing that ?
It is called dhimmittude.
Something Mughals inflicted on non-muslims in India.
And its remnants are seen in the attitude of subservience or deference shown by self-proclaimed ‘intellectuals’ towards the atrocities done by jihadi muslims and in their attempts to rationalise jihadi terrorism as freedom fighting.
You are entitled to your opinion, however ridiculous it may be.
But you must extend that privilege to others too.