Responding to the terrorist attacks last weekend in Egypt, Turkey, Somalia, Yemen, and Nigeria—which collectively left some 200 people dead—Steven A. Cook cautions against overanalyzing:

There are compelling explanations as to why people are attracted to extremism. The exhaustive academic literature on terrorism tells us that there are political ends for the violence. The perpetrators [of the Coptic-church bombing in Cairo] want to destabilize Egypt and usher in their Islamist vision of an Islamic state. In Turkey, the goal [of the synchronized bombings in Istanbul] is to undermine the state in the service of Kurdish independence. [But] something else is also at play: the glorification of violence for violence’s sake. If there is any doubt about this, take note of the footage extremists have offered to the world of their bloodshed and mayhem. . . .

Both the Egyptian and Turkish governments have lamentable records on human rights. They have used coercion and violence to establish political control in societies where so much has become contested over the last three to five years. . . . [Yet] the repression-radicalization dynamic, in which people determine that they have no recourse other than taking up arms in the face of repression, only tells part of the story. What did the people praying on a Sunday morning have to do with the Egyptian state’s violence? Nothing. And the people killed in [Istanbul], what did they have to do with [Turkey’s brutal treatment of its Kurds]? Nothing. . . . [O]nly in the minds of people like the Qatar-based Islamist preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who argues that all Israelis are legitimate targets because they all serve in the Israel Defense Forces at one time or another, does that make otherwise innocent people legitimate targets.

The perpetrators of the attacks this weekend in Egypt (no one has yet claimed responsibility) and in Turkey (the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, or TAK, claimed responsibility), murdered people because that is what they do. Full stop. No other explanation needed.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.