Why is the world mourning Paris but not Beirut?

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6119691-why-is-the-world-mourning-paris-but-not-beirut- 

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6119691-why-is-the-world-mourning-paris-but-not-beirut- 

[disisus]

An explanation from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lev-raphael/paris-beirut-and-grief-sh_b_8572752.html

[rose-dee]

I think the article itself answers that question, with this statement, amongst others: 

"...especially in Lebanon, where many expressed shock that such chaos had reached France, a country they regarded as far safer than their own."

I expect that many people in the world who have been around long enough remember Lebanon as a place synonymous with war and chaos, just as Syria will be remembered.  As horrific as the events in Beirut were, it's not a surprise that the terror has spilled over from neighbouring countries.  In fact, it's almost a miracle Beirut has not been hit harder to this point.  As another example, I don't recall Israeli colours being raised all over the world in response to the acts of terror that have occurred there recently.  It is a sad reality that the world has come to expect such events in the Middle East.  Perhaps we're even somewhat inured to them by dint of frequency. 

There is something else.  Cities such as Paris (and New York) are emblematic of western civilization, in countries imagined by so many people around the world to be bastions of personal freedom and relative peace.  Beyond that, Paris itself is seen as the heart of western culture and freedom.  I think that explains a large part of the shock involved.  

There have been other terrorist attacks on Paris that didn't elicit the same sort of response, but this was perceived as a direct attack on the very basic freedoms that people throughout the western world take as their right and assume will always be there -- the freedom to wander through a public square on a Friday evening, to drop into a café and have dinner with a friend, to attend a concert, etc. etc. -- without ever remotely considering your life may be in danger.  

I'm not sure that worldwide perception is quite so strong about Beirut. 

[rose-dee]

---

@disisus wrote:

An explanation from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lev-raphael/paris-beirut-and-grief-sh_b_8572752.html

---

I completely agree with the thoughts of the writer of that article.  

Paris is the world's city, in a way that other places are not, and many of us throughout the world feel a special tie to it from some experience or connection we may have had.  I'm glad he was able to call this "horror comparison" what it was -- grief shaming.  

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

I see the point about Paris being a world city and least we not forget that we associate more with the French than others because their lives, religion, even colour is more similar to ours. However there lies the problem, there is discrimination be it bold or subtle. I asked a man this morning why there seems to be a difference and his reply was I suspect honest when he said "it's happening to their people, let them figure it out". Hummmm 'their people'? Are we not all human beings? Should the innocent deaths of those of one culture etc be less than those of another culture? But it's ok, I understand, the real problem is not race or religion or assorted other excuses, the real problem is as human beings we have yet to grow as individuals. We can send men to the moon and rockets to other planets and communicate around the world with the use of technology on our wrist......but we still herd into groups as was done by our forefathers millenniums ago and we still covet that which belongs to others and we still fear those who are not like us and power still blinds us. In reality we have not come far from the tree we crawled down from. 

[rose-dee]

Well, there will certainly always be bigots.  I don't believe I'm one of them however for thinking Paris was more deeply troubling than Beirut, for example.  Not the deaths per se, but the symbolic meaning of the act(s).  ISIS must be licking its chops gloating over how thoroughly it struck at the heart of Europe (and for that matter, civilization).  

It was in some ways an escalation of the acts we witnessed when ISIS destroyed ancient treasures at Palmyra, without the death toll of course, but certainly with the same sort of nihilistic and irrational destruction of anything that represents culture, beauty, free thought, or shared civilization.  I think in the same way those monuments were symbolic, Paris is symbolic.   

Paris is also in many ways the "world's city", a place to which many around the globe have a very direct and emotional attachment, the likes of which few other places can claim.  I really don't believe the huge reaction is all about discrimination or bigotry.  I think it's more immediate than that.  For millions of people who have either visited or lived in Paris, it's both very personal and at the same time meaningful on a grander scale.

It's not a matter of "horror comparisons" or comparing body counts. It is, besides any personal intimacy with the city itself, the fact that Paris is emblematic as the heart of what many people in the world consider to be the best of civilization -- art, culture, personal freedom, democracy, equality.  Not that France always succeeds, but that doesn't lessen the power of the symbol of Paris as a beacon.  

The fact that so many from other parts of the world migrate to France, and especially to Paris, says something about its inherent appeal. The City of Light is simply not just any other place.  To attack its residents is to attack the city's meaning.  I don't think places like Beirut can claim that sort of meaning.  Perhaps London or New York, but not even Ottawa (we didn't see the Canadian colours being projected on buildings around the world then). 

There is a reason the world looked on in particularly acute horror when Hitler marched his army into Paris during WWII.  Despite all the other cities he had taken over, this was the jewel in the crown, an emblem of freedom and culture throughout the world, and he knew the terrible meaning to other countries of his being in control of such a place.  

So too, I expect, do ISIS terrorists.  Injecting intense fear into the heart of a city that has stood for freedom (of every kind) for so long is so much more of a coup for ISIS than attacking a more vulnerable and accessible target closer by.  

There is greater meaning in attacking the perceived centre of western civilization in a relatively peaceful and distant land, that doesn't apply to places like Beirut.  Do we have to apologize for paying more attention to that?  As barbaric as it was, I think we would have to admit that it was a far more brazen and logistically difficult maneuver than carrying such an attack out on a middle eastern city.  

For all of the above considerations, it's good to see Parisians defiantly going about their very Parisian lifestyle again today.  

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil · Accepted solution]

Paris may be a jewel of its own denomination, however there is a much deeper message to be deciphered. When the 'west' pays more attention and gives more sympathy to one group than another and interestingly the one group that always seems to get less compassion are of one religion, then that more than serves the purpose of terrorists. It is a simple matter for them to point out the lack of real caring and that is a open door for recruits. If the west wants to defeat ISIS then they first must turn their own against them and ignoring the horrors they face on a regular basis and treating those horrors with less outreach is not helping eliminate the problem.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

I have no idea why that turned green or what an 'accepted solution' is. 

[gauge33]

Why not the 224 in the bombed Russian plane.

[rose-dee]

---

@prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil wrote:

Paris may be a jewel of its own denomination, however there is a much deeper message to be deciphered. When the 'west' pays more attention and gives more sympathy to one group than another and interestingly the one group that always seems to get less compassion are of one religion, then that more than serves the purpose of terrorists. It is a simple matter for them to point out the lack of real caring and that is a open door for recruits. If the west wants to defeat ISIS then they first must turn their own against them and ignoring the horrors they face on a regular basis and treating those horrors with less outreach is not helping eliminate the problem.

---

You may be over-thinking the question in order to find the hidden face of bigotry, whether religious, ethnic or otherwise, that may not be there.  I just don't believe that's the essential reason for the attention that the attack on Paris elicited.  

Paris is of importance in the world as a whole in a way that cities like Beirut are not, and that importance involves not just the "western" world.  People of diverse ethnic backgrounds from all over the globe are drawn to Paris for cultural, artistic, scientific or related reasons, that has more to do with the city's iconic status as a place for innovation and free thought.  

I just can't accept that the relative lack of reaction to the horrors in Beirut was related primarily to religious bigotry or lack of compassion, although it may have been related to a sort of "horror weariness" of reports coming out of that part of the world (which is a completely different discussion).  Not to belabour the point, but I think most people know that Beirut is not exclusively a Muslim city -- Lebanon has substantial Christian population, and Lebanon itself could be considered a "westernized" country in the sense that it is more stable and open than many in the region.  

In my view, the shock of the Paris attacks had much more to do with the character of the city itself (Paris) and the fact that these were escalated attacks, with larger-scale fatalities and injuries.  Perhaps the fact that it occurred almost immediately after the Beirut attacks and the Russian jet downing may have made it even more shocking for a lot of people.  I'm also the first to admit that the media will focus on the biggest, most dramatic, most horrific events.  That in itself may account for the greater attention worldwide that Paris received.  

As I said, when Tel Aviv is attacked by terrorists now, it barely gets a minute or two on the evening news.  I admit I don't very often agree with 'gauge' on most matters, but he may also have a point with the Russian jet. If I recall, far more attention was paid, for far longer, to the Malaysian jet that disappeared into the sea.  That went on for weeks.  Was that ethnically-driven?  I don't think so.  The attention was driven by the media because it was such an unexpected and particularly horrifying and sensational mystery.  

My point is that it's all too easy to use "grief shaming" to inflame the whole situation even further, and I object to people on social media who have been jumping on that bandwagon.  Let's just say that the city of Paris means a great deal to a whole lot more people in the world than does Beirut.  Reacting with the heart to a place for which you have a personal connection (or even a vicarious connection, through movies, music, art, sports, what-have-you) is a natural reaction.  

As far as eliminating the scourge of ISIS goes, my opinion is that these are people whose minds have been warped and brain-washed by what are effectively death-cult leaders to such an extent that no amount of outreach or compassion is going to change most of them, regardless of where that effort might come from.  

However I think it is possible for young people to be directed away from such groups before it's too late, before they get to the point of running off to join. In my opinion that effort can't be wholly successful unless it comes from within their own communities.  It's western hubris to think we can do it more effectively.

[dipmicro]

Incidentally Beirut used to be called Paris of Middle East and Lebanon was compared to Switzerland once.

Then 6-day war happened and hundreds of thousand Palestinians found refuge in Lebanon and Israel did not allow them back.

Then Muslim insurrections happened, where insurgents demanded Lebanon become part of United Arab Republic. Palestinian militants kept relocating to Lebanon.  Then sectarian civil war broke out and no more Paris of Middle East, it is a third world now. This can happen to any country. It may as well be that in 30yrs world will be getting hysterical over stranded cat in Jakarta while Parisians will be dying of cholera without anyone noticing. First world is too self-absorbed.