Daniel Pearl and Remembrance

Over at Daily Kos there was a diary about the anniversary of the killing of Daniel Pearl, ten years ago and what it means to the diarist as a Jew. In the comments, Pearl was remembered larger than life. To me, and perhaps the diarist, he was just a Jew, and his plight will mostly be forgotten until another anniversary.

I therefore wrote a comment that did not make it there, but its essence follows here.

We take a moment to mourn a Pearl or a Klinghoffer, then return to the daze of ignorance and fear about how and why they were murdered.

The intentions and acts of adversaries, adherents of political jihad without compunction, should not be forgotten for a moment.

This does not mean, despite what some are quick to accuse, all Muslim individuals are bad jihadists and should be punished. To misinterpret and so accuse is both wrong and not an answer, but a diversion from the substantive issue, manifested by personally attacking another's character.

Interestingly, I learn all the time there are Muslims or ex-Muslims that feel no different than me. One I just read from yesterday is Manda Zand Ervin, a feminist who was the U.S. delegate to the UN Commission on the Status of Women in 2008. She was invited to the 2009 G-8 International Conference on Violence Against Women, at the Italian Foreign Ministry headquarters in Rome, Italy, as the featured speaker on Iran, and can be seen here.

As such, it shows my remark cannot involve ALL. Many charges of Islamophobia or other derangement are simply false.

Indeed, one could say the accusers, by their actions, pretend there is no threat at all. Yet we know that they understand, which is why it would be unfair to accuse them. That said, should we trust the opinions of those who deny the obvious that occurs before our very eyes? Do they really know better?

When they say it is hateful to expose hate, do they know what they are talking about? Many of them seem quite willing to demonize others in hateful terms. Does that count?

Or what of the attempts to censor speech in the marketplace, as if only they have the right to provide information about what people may think.

They are to be excused. They do it all in the name of human rights!

Generally speaking, there is something the matter when false labels and accusations are used to divert an argument or discussion, no matter by whom. Admittedly, that is the state of discourse these days. It changes little on the substantive level, but constitutes a serious hindrance to cooperation among peoples.

Yes, it is virtually impossible to stop one intending to use a gratuitous approach, though it stands in the way of well considered solutions to complex, real problems that reflect the will of the interested.

It is something we should not tolerate in silence.