The mass murder of unarmed civilians carried out by terrorists in Paris last weekend was appalling. Whether considered as an act of war or of terror, it was indefensible. It left over 100 people dead, many more injured, and families devastated. It embedded terror into French urban life. It needs a response.
The initial response of Malcolm Turnbull, like that of many other international leaders, did all that was possible. He expressed horror at the killings, sympathy with the victims, solidarity with the French people in their grief and outrage, and defiance in the face of terror.
In this he echoed the football fans who sang the Marseillaise as they left the imperilled football stadium. It was a song of battle undertaken and of commitment to victory against terrorism.
The themes of war against terrorism and victory have dominated commentary on the killings. In light of the fact that the war against terror was the seedbed in which IS grew, they demand serious reflection. We should ask precisely what our enemy is attacking, what therefore must be defended, and what will be the signs of victory or defeat in the struggle.
These questions take us beyond military actions and political alliances to values. In the soundbites from his initial response, Turnbull made freedom the touchstone of the conflict. IS terrorists wish to destroy freedom, and particularly freedom of worship. Freedom is the value that defines France and its allies, and must be defended at all costs.
That account merits broader reflection. The three values that came to define the French Revolution, and so modern France, are Freedom, Equality and Fraternity. The history of Europe has subsequently been shaped by the tension between freedom and equality.
Communist regimes invoked equality in order to justify tyranny. Other states invoked freedom to justify the gross unfairness embedded in their institutions in order to allow the wealthy to maintain and amass wealth. In this case freedom signifies the unrestrained economic freedom of the competitive individual, often dignified by association with religious freedom and democratic forms of government.
In both visions of the world the forgotten triplet is fraternity: the idea that people of different faiths, convictions and racial origins can live harmoniously together, responsible to each other, and free to shape a society for the benefit of all. The challenge to Western politics since the French Revolution has been how to make space for fraternity when resolving the tension between liberty and equality.
Fraternity, the amicable relationship between brothers and sisters, is rooted in relationships of gift. We can only make a gift to others if there is equality between us based on our shared humanity, and where we give freely. Without equality and freedom, what is given becomes an exaction, a demand or an expectation. Alienation and disengagement follow.
Totalitarian regimes usually adopt a high rhetoric of fraternity that masks the iron handed impositions of the state. Where the economic freedom of the individual is canonised, the rhetoric of fraternity is advertising puff to mask sectional self-interest. In both cases cynicism about political processes results.
Against this background it is not helpful to define freedom as the defining issue in responding to IS terrorism. In our culture freedom is freighted with ideological connotations and unresolved tensions.
The point of difference is more accurately defined as fraternity. The use of terror by IS flows out of its demand for allegiance to a single version of faith that trumps all other allegiances. It leaves no room for gift or fraternity.
From this ideological perspective terrorist acts can be effective in drawing unengaged Muslims to the cause, and also in proving that in Western societies fraternity is an illusion.
In the calculus of terror, states responding to terrorism will respond more punitively and indiscriminately in the Middle East, will nurture suspicion of their own Muslim minorities, and will introduce repressive and discriminatory laws in the name of security.
The anticipated result of the increased use of force in the Middle East and of repression in the West will be growing resentment and alienation among Muslims in both arenas, and consequently stronger support for the ideology of IS and its lookalikes. Since the West is seen to be driven by self-interest, it can be expected to lack the stamina for a sustained struggle.
If this analysis of IS terror has merit, the defining value to be protected in our response is fraternity. It will be expressed in solidarity not only with the victims of terror and with the French people in their trial, but also with the Muslim communities both in France and in Australia.
They are also our brothers and sisters with whom we are called to build an open and respectful society that exposes the meanness of the IS ideal.
The risk is that we shall turn on our Muslim brothers and sisters in our own lands and abroad, and treat them in repressive and discriminatory ways. Turnbull's refusal to link what is done in Paris to immigration or to authentic Islam is encouraging.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.
Image: Elliot Brown, Flickr CC