The Paris Attacks Can’t Be Used To Limit Refugees or Blindly Bomb More Civilians

Our response to such unspeakable tragedies can’t be to create even more tragedies in other countries.

Gregory Shupak

A mourner lays flowers at a Berlin, Germany, memorial site for those killed in last night's terror attacks in Paris. (Getty)

Even though we don’t know the full story, we know its contours. Last night’s attacks in Paris feel familiar, though some of the proper nouns are different. Whereas two of the murderers behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre in January met through opposition to the invasion of Iraq, shouts about Syria boomed during last night’s killings and one of the attackers is reported to have been in possession of a Syrian passport.

Carnage on your screen and the worst noises humans can make, of suffering and terror and helplessness, hit your ears. You feel incredibly sad, deflated. Meanwhile your cousin is sharing memes that say we have to keep out the refugees (featuring pictures of Sikhs).

In addition to sympathy with last night’s victims, the horror in Paris will register with many anti-war activists and advocates for refugees as a gift to the imperialists and jingoists. But we shouldn’t cede the moment to those reactionaries. This is precisely the time to argue forcefully for an increase in the number of refugees accepted into Western countries and for a change to the foreign policy of the United States and its allies. Here are a few of the arguments we should be making.

War is not a strategy for ending terrorism; it is among its forms and causes. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, the United States and its allies have unleashed untold carnage in recent times. Only a moron (or perhaps a zealous Christopher Hitchens devotee) would deny that one consequence of this carnage is terrorist attacks on Western targets. Tell your racist cousin that even if he has no objection to sharing in responsibility for the slaughters our governments continuously carry out, the inevitable response through attacks like yesterday’s is reason enough for them to oppose these wars.

The United States and its allies have deliberately backed jihadists for decades, first as a Cold War tactic against leftists in the Middle East and North Africa who allied with Moscow or might have done so had they gained power, and more recently as a strategy of countering the barriers to U.S. control of the region presented by governments like Iran and non-state actors like Hezbollah or the Palestinian resistance movements. Backing such forces has been a major contribution to the Syrian tragedy and to the empowerment of extreme reactionaries in that country.

To the same end, our states have backed tyrannical regimes, notably in the Gulf, that repress their populations and foment sectarianism. In the case of Saudi Arabia in particular, these U.S. allies have exported the Wahhabism that seems likely to have been at play on the Parisian streets. To put an end to jihadist attacks at home, it’s necessary to stop supporting jihadism aboard and to quit backing governments who asphyxiate their populations.

Accepting more refugees is a key, immediate term first step toward reparations for the millions our states have killed. This can be part of a longer-term process of the badly needed reinvention of how Western states engage with the people of Asia and North Africa, the effects of which include the massacres we’ve just seen in Paris.

Full-throated declarations of civilizational superiority abound in the wake of the Paris attacks, practically begging for military intervention somewhere — anywhere. France will be merciless towards these barbarians,” French President Francois Hollande said last night.

If we cede too much in this discussion, we will allow for random, senseless bloodletting of more innocent people — more Afghanistans, Iraqs, Libyas, Syrias, Yemens. And the only possible result of such actions would be more Parises. 

Please consider supporting our work.

I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a year-end donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise. With the 2024 election looming, the fearless and independent reporting you can expect from In These Times is needed more than ever, but we can’t do it without you.

Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to our year-end fundraising campaign. We need your help to raise $150,000 to fund our reporting in 2024.

Thank you for reading and supporting In These Times. If you value our work, please consider supporting our essential reporting with a year-end donation.

Alex Han, Executive Director

Greg Shupak writes fiction, non-fiction and book reviews. His most recent book is The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel, and The Media. He teaches Media Studies at the University of Guelph.
Get 10 issues for $19.95

Subscribe to the print magazine.