Last Friday’s horrific events in Paris left the world shocked and angry. But beyond those feelings of horror, there was a sense of overwhelming helplessness not only in terms of how to act, but how to think. ISIL’s attacks stepped up debates new and old on the issues of refugees, religious extremism, Western hegemony, and more.
In the week since, news outlets have been in a frenzy to explain the events to its viewers with continuous coverage and a seemingly endless stream of expert panellists who range from vaguely informative to shamefully alarmist. Below is a breakdown of the main facts, as well as summaries of articles that provides thoughtful commentary on a few of the key, ongoing debates.
WHAT, WHEN, AND WHERE
On November 13, individuals acting on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) attacked a number of spots on a busy Friday night in Paris, France. They used explosives and assault rifles, killing 129 people and wounding hundreds.
The previous day, on November 12, 43 people were killed and hundreds wounded in Lebanon after suicide bombers detonated their devices in a Beirut suburb. ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack.
A day after the attacks, ISIL released a statement claiming responsibility and promising France and its supporters that “they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign.”
An overview of the history of the Islamic State, its organization and methods, as well as an account of its rise over the past couple of years. In a testament to its brutality, ISIL was renounced by al-Qaeda in 2014.
So far, there is some information about the names and nationalities of some of the suspected terrorists and co-conspirators. The suspected leader of the attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was killed in a police raid on November 18.
ISIL has cited French intervention in Syria and Iraq as their reason for attacking the country. In the wake of Friday’s events, many commentators, writers, and academics have reiterated the complex historical and political factors that have contributed to the rise of ISIL. Others, while acknowledging this history, are underwhelmed by arguments that say the West is dealing with a problem of its own making.
A look at the role U.S. involvement in the Middle East has played, as well as its present-day implications. This article draws poignant examples of this relationship, particularly by pointing out how Islamic extremism and jihadism were encouraged by the United States as a strategy towards mobilizing the Muslim world against the “godless” USSR’s socialist influence in the Middle East.
Explanations of jihadism that stop at condemnations of Western involvement are lazy, according to The Guardian political columnist Rafael Behr. This discussion is in connection to recent comments by Labour party MP Jeremy Corbyn, but it is relevant to how leaders should act. Behr writes, “The hardest part of leadership is judging how far to stray from what is ideal for the sake of what is necessary.”
First, is how ISIL managed to carry out these attacks and evade intelligence agencies. Those details will be made more available to us in the coming weeks and months.
Second, is how governments and individuals should respond to these attacks. There will certainly be increased military action. French President François Hollande has declared the attacks an “act of war”. Debates range from whether states should respond militarily, how events in some parts of the world are prioritized over others, and whether or not borders should be kept open for refugees seeking protection.
In a lecture in March 2015 at Simon Fraser University, Gwynne Dyer, military historian and journalist, explained that military response to the, relatively speaking, minor issue of terrorism is exactly the kind of overreaction ISIL wants.
Anti-immigration sentiment has been strong in recent years. It comes as no surprise since groups are especially resistant to outsiders when the economy is struggling, and there is a perceived threat. The images of drowned Syrian toddler Alan Kurdi galvanized global support for refugee protection. The terror in Paris has returned ammunition to politicians opposed to welcoming migrants, and provided an out for EU members meant to share the load of settling refugees.
The links about refugees are primarily in regards to the United States. Our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has remained committed to admitting 25,000 refugees into Canada, despite growing criticism.
Historically, the national security threat to the U.S. posed by refugees has been non-existent with experts maintaing that the risk is minimal. Admittedly, there are features of the Syrian refugee crisis, such as the large number of migrants, that prove more complicated than past influxes. This has led to concern over whether a U.S. Syrian refugee program could be infiltrated by terrorists who are not properly screened.
A Jewish writer’s perspective on negative public opinion about admitting refugees. He cites telling polls from the 1930s on public sentiment towards Jewish refugees.
In addition, the issue of white lives versus brown lives was a prevalent topic. The coverage of the Beirut bombings by the same group just the day before did not garner the same amount of attention and public displays of support. This post is arguably complicit in that tendency.
In the hours after the panic and terror in Paris, Facebook enabled its Safety Check feature to allow those in the danger zone to check in, effectively alerting their friends and family to their status. Up until that point, it was only activated for natural disasters. This was not done for the bombing in Lebanon. Facebook’s Vice President of Growth, Alex Schultz, explained the reasons for this in a post on the social media site.
Facebook users were also given the option of applying an overlay of the French Tricolour. There was no option for the Lebanese flag. Emma Teitel wrote a pointed piece calling out critics of the Facebook filter and the news coverage, remarking that many of them did not discuss the Beirut bombings until after the French attacks occurred.
It’s common knowledge that Facebook uses algorithms to display content based on what we typically read, share, and like. Moreover, prominent newspapers do publish stories about what’s happening in the rest of the world – they certainly did after the suicide bombing in Beirut. The responsibility may ultimately be up to us to seek out information about the rest of the world, especially with a tool like the Internet at our disposal.