 |  |
Click for Contents
|
P.O. Box 1805,Jerusalem 91017 Tel. 972-2-531-5440, Fax: 972-2-537-9489 Advertising Fax: 972-2-531-5425, Email Editorial: [email protected] Subscriptions: [email protected] Web site: http://www.jrep.com |
Jewish World: The Horrors of an Era
Ina Friedman
A year after the grisly assassination of his son, Judea Pearl speaks out about the role Daniel Pearl�s legacy can play in the battle against anti-Semitism
In the year since Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was brutally murdered by Muslim extremists in Pakistan, his family has created a foundation to foster cross-cultural tolerance, in the spirit of Daniel�s character, his work and his ability to feel at home anywhere, as kind of a "citizen of the world." But not everyone in the Jewish community is happy with the balance it has struck between Daniel�s Jewish identity and his universalist spirit. UCLA Professor Judea Pearl, his Israeli-born father, speaks to The Report about Daniel, his legacy and some of the controversy it has stirred.
Daniel was not a derring-do journalist. Did he have misgivings about the assignment in Karachi or following a story on Muslim militants?
Daniel was clearly safety-conscious; he actually wrote the manual of safety rules for The Wall Street Journal. He expressed misgivings about being assigned to Afghanistan and refused to go. But he assessed Pakistan to be less dangerous because he had been there before, had many friends there, and felt familiar with the place. He, of course, took precautions before this assignment, consulting with his editor, the security officer at the American Embassy and experts on terrorism. They all advised him to stay in public places, which he did by going to a restaurant attached to a hotel.
Why did Daniel�s story reverberate so deeply around the world?
Daniel was a unique individual, and once the magnifying glass zoomed in on him, people the world over perceived this. He absolutely loved people; he was confident of the love of his family and peers; and, taken together, that made him a quiet leader whose company was sought. Daniel was also totally color-blind and made friends of people from many different backgrounds. He could pick up a musician in the subway, or a soccer player practicing on the field, and take him home to dinner, or along to a dinner at which he was a guest. One of the traits that made him a good reporter was that he listened because he was genuinely interested in what others had to say. And he was a strong person, not intimidated by parents, teachers, rules or institutions. He went after what he wanted in life, and lived his life to the fullest. I think that�s another reason why people were so moved by his tragedy.
As an American reporter working in an area where the United States was at war, he was obviously vulnerable. But what role do you think raw anti-Semitism played in his murder?
Based on the videotape they released (I didn�t see it but I read the transcript), Daniel�s abductors were not at all interested in his work or his being an American. They focused on one thing only: the Jewish connection. My theory is that they had him narrate his background freely for some time and then selected the sentences they perceived to be most "incriminating" and that "justified" what they planned to do -- and these were the three sentences about his relationship with Judaism and Israel. Daniel�s murderers assessed the mentality and temperament of their prospective audience -- people they were hoping to recruit to their cause -- and they knew that these nuances would be the most arousing and vindicatory in their eyes.
The desire to obscure Daniel�s Jewish identity and family connection to Israel after his abduction is understandable. But even after the murder, the motive of anti-Semitism was initially played down. Why was that?
Our family did not want to emphasize it while his murderers were on trial. During those proceedings, both the defendants and their lawyers were given to outbursts of an anti-Semitic and accusatory nature, implying that Daniel was a spy [for Israel]. And we feared that the more Daniel�s Jewish identity was highlighted, the more likely it would be for some Pakistani journalist to say: "Well, perhaps he really was a spy." So we refrained from stressing this while the trial was going on.
Now that we feel less concerned about what one [Pakistani] journalist or another may say, we have been stressing that anti-Semitism was clearly a motive in Daniel�s murder. And it�s important to emphasize this especially because anti-Semitism has been so amplified during the past year and has taken on new dimensions.
Daniel considered himself as a "citizen of the world," a concept that is frowned upon in many Jewish circles. Can you tell us how he perceived his Jewish identity?
He wasn�t an observant Jew, but he enjoyed [Jewish customs], he could quote freely from the Sayings of the Fathers, and he was curious about his roots. At home we recite Kiddush regularly and celebrate the holidays; we are very respectful toward and serious about tradition. But I don�t see any conflict between being a good Jew and being a citizen of the world, any more than one would consider family ties contradicting loyalty to one�s country.
The distinction manifests itself when it comes to taking action. At one extreme we come across the [mindset of] "the whole world�s against us, so what can we do?" But if all we do is shout that [mantra], we become ineffective. The alternative is to be realistic and say: Some people are against us, some people are hateful, and some people are not. Let�s help those who are not filled with hatred overcome those who are, and try to make a better world.
Have you found support for this approach?
I have compared Danny�s tragedy to that of Anne Frank, in the sense that both personified the horrors of an era and both have induced young people to study anti-Semitism -- and the anatomy of fanaticism in general -- and do something about it. And I�ve been criticized for drawing this comparison, because some people -- who see a tension or contradiction between Jewishness and universalism -- apparently still resent Otto Frank for not emphasizing his daughter�s Jewishness as much as he could have.
But it�s a fact that Anne�s diary did more to curb anti-Semitism than any other piece of literature. People from as far away as Japan and Vietnam visit the Anne Frank House by the thousands, and were it not for her diary, they wouldn�t have become familiar with what happened in Europe in the 1940s. The diary was an instrument, and this is how I would like Danny�s legacy to be handled -- as an instrument to convey the horrors of anti-Semitism and to forge alliances with those who can help us overcome anti-Semitism and hatred in general.
One of the ways that the Daniel Pearl Foundation fosters cross-cultural understanding is through music.
Yes, that�s because Danny was a talented musician and loved music. It was his way of connecting across verbal and ethnic divides. To mark what would have been his 39th birthday, we threw a large party across the globe: more than 100 [classical, jazz and bluegrass] concerts in 17 countries, with thousands of musicians playing and jamming for tolerance. We believe there�s a great need for a universal language like music as one way of counteracting the current turmoil.
Is the foundation also trying to establish more traditional forms of dialogue?
We�re now sponsoring dialogues on tolerance for teenagers, and we�re holding an essay contest that has drawn more than 500 entries. We�re also thinking of instituting dialogues among journalists living in areas of conflict. We�d like to focus on the role of journalists in conflict resolution because, as you surely know, journalists have big ears and big mouths. When you convert one of them [to an idea], you have the potential to convert tens of thousands of readers. But we�re not finding this easy to set up, and some people question whether it�s really effective.
Are there any specific plans to create dialogues between Israeli and Palestinian journalists?
We�re still at the exploration stage now. A memorial recently held for Daniel in Jerusalem featured a panel of international and local journalists, and this might become a model for discussion between Palestinian and Israeli journalists -- if there�s willingness on both sides.
With intercommunal dialogue, on any level, at a nadir in the Middle East, why do you think such a project may succeed?
I am optimistic by nature, and when I see need, I see hope. There�s a need now for peace-oriented programs. America needs to be associated with them, and Jews need to be associated with them to counteract the image that some are trying to project of us as warmongers and occupiers. On the Muslim side, there�s a need for people to exonerate themselves of the crime [of Daniel�s murder] and thus a willingness to collaborate with us on cultural and educational projects under the Daniel Pearl umbrella. When you put all this together, there�s reason to hope that positive things will develop out of the legacy of Daniel Pearl.
April 7, 2003
Jewish World
|
 |
|
© The Jerusalem Report 1999-2001 |  |