Judea Pearl at the Athenaeum

Sorry for the lateness all -- I have been busy appreciating Thanksgiving and editing and such. But below is my response to Judea Pearl's speech at the Athenaeum.
--------------------------------

Before hearing Judea Pearl speak at the Athenaeum this past Tuesday (November 20th, 2007) I researched the death of his son, Daniel Pearl. In my investigation I discovered that Muslim extremists murdered an intelligent, thoughtful, critical, and humane journalist. I discovered that the journalist’s beautiful wife, a woman of incredible emotional death, employs art as a form of mourning. I discovered that two heart-wrenched parents, moved by the death of their shining son, create meaningful change in the world through the Daniel Pearl Foundation. I discovered that this foundation, named after their son, seeks to promote cross-cultural understanding through music, art, and the humanities. I also stumbled upon an article of debatable objectivism titled “Anti-Zionism is Racism”, written by Judea Pearl for the Jewish Journal. Like any objective journalist, I entered the Athenaeum as a critic.
Regardless of criticism, hearing Judea speak was a pleasure. He presented with clarity and introspection—he has obviously articulated his speech hundreds of times, and thought about it thousands more. He elucidated a few all-encompassing points. Primarily, that Judaism for Daniel Pearl was his source of historical identity, connection to extended family, strength, and respect. His heritage fed a deep spring of power—a flexible power which embraces difference and actively seeks common humanity between individuals. This strength, raised in Jewish history, is critical—it mistrusts dogma, authority, and conventional wisdom of all kinds.
According to Judea, Daniel’s most coveted virtues are not simply useful personal characteristics—they are mandatory weapons against a culture of terror that threatens humanity (and Judaism) today. Agents of terrorism live among us, Judea asserts, and they nurture dismissive disrespect for right and wrong. It is not merely enough to discuss theology and history—society must debate the “hot issues” immediately. With humanity, objectivity, and academic integrity, we are obligated to fire up these scorching problems. And in the process of doing so, the image of America internationally will flourish as a leader in the battle against hatred.
Yet the speech resonated with the rhetoric of his questionable article. Judea’s speech was somewhat tilted toward the Zionist perspective and thereby is not objective. However, Judea’s personal tilt is another reminder to be constantly critical of our allies and foes alike in order to seek out the truest, most humane perspective on any political struggle involving a possible violation of human rights.
Undoubtedly, I was moved by Judea’s call to action against today’s moral terrorists. His cohesion of religion, history, and familial culture is mandatory to empathize with any, all, and every peoples. In light of the death of Daniel Pearl and the strength of the Pearl family, I urge all activists to take Daniel’s virtues to heart—be objective, be intelligent, be empathetic, be humorous, be humane. The war is far from over, and the first battleground is within ourselves.