>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:56:34 -0800
>From: Bradford DeLong
>Subject: RE: WSWS on Pearl
>But the evidence is not that Danny Pearl was killed because >people
>thought he was a CIA agent. The evidence is that he was >killed
>because he was a Jew...
I think that when you say "evidence" here, you mean "newspaper reports". Let's not pretend we've got any more information than we actually have; that's exactly what the WSWS did wrong. I might say that as far as I can see, the "evidence" is that Mr Pearl was called "Danny" by his family and close friends and "Daniel" in his working life and by the general public, but I can't prove that either.
But since Pearl did not walk around in traditional Orthodox costume or tell people he was a Jew without being asked, and since his kidnappers (apparently falsely) asserted in their ransom demand that he was a CIA (and Mossad) agent, I don't think that it goes beyond the bounds of acceptable speculation to suggest that the fact he was kidnapped in the first place has something to do with the fact that journalists are typically no longer regarded as neutrals or non-combatants. And the fact that journalists are not regarded as neutrals has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of them in fact *are not* neutrals, because a lot of journalists in war zones are, as a matter of fact, also CIA agents.
This is clearly a personal tragedy and a unique act of savage, racist murder. But (and an economist of all people ought to be able to recognise this dual character) it is at the same time, an event which is part of a wider pattern, and a predictable outcome of a previous policy choice on the part of the CIA (to recruit journalists).
I don't understand why this is so offensive; I certainly regret the offence caused.
dd
Get Your Free Email at http://www.al-islam.com