From Bush to Bibi to Trump: Learning to Live with Terrorism in an Age of Escalation

Frazer Macdonald Hay
Jun 12
4 min read

In 2001, George W. Bush declared an unrelenting “War on Terror,” vowing to hunt down every terrorist group “of global reach.” It was a statement of moral clarity—and strategic delusion. As scholars like Louise Richardson and Richard English pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy you can defeat in conventional warfare. It is an asymmetrical tactic. A method. A form of psychological warfare that thrives on spectacle, overreaction, and state missteps (English, 2009; Lambert, 2015).

Today, Israel wages its own version of this war in Gaza, deploying the same language of total eradication. And just last week, Donald Trump fanned the flames by proposing that the United States “take over Gaza and make it an American resort.” Jihadist propagandists swiftly seized on his remarks, calling them proof of Western imperial aggression and using them as a rallying cry for violence.

This is not just bad diplomacy. It is dangerous strategy. Because, as history shows, such rhetoric doesn’t eliminate terrorism—it fertilizes it.

Terrorism as Communication, Not Just Violence

As Bruce Hoffman has written, terrorism is “designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim” (Hoffman, 2006). It creates fear. It disrupts the social fabric. And it thrives when the state overreacts or plays into its communicative logic.

That’s why the role of media is so critical. The Fourth and Fifth Estates—mainstream and non-mainstream media—are not neutral observers but active participants in the theatre of terrorism. The relationship is reciprocal: terrorists need media exposure; media need shocking, fast-moving stories (Weimann, 2008). This leads to what Cass Sunstein called the “Availability Cascade”—a feedback loop where selective, emotional coverage triggers public panic, which in turn pressures political systems to react disproportionately (Kahneman, 2011).

Trump’s remarks about Gaza are a textbook example of this dynamic. Amplified across news outlets and social media, they handed jihadist groups a viral headline to frame their recruitment narratives. Meanwhile, right-wing extremists in the West, angry at what they see as “wars for Israel,” also latch onto this rhetoric (Shekhovtsov & Pomerantsev, 2016). Different enemies—same emotional fuel.

The Public’s Role: From Passive Consumers to Active Agents

In my work, I propose a vision of the public not as frightened bystanders but as engaged citizens who take ownership of the terrorism discourse. This includes questioning media narratives, reflecting on personal biases, and resisting policies that alienate diaspora and minority communities (Appadurai, 2006; Hickman et al., 2012).

I argue that we must treat terrorism as a long-term condition, not an aberration. Just as Cold War societies developed protocols for nuclear threat, we need new forms of civic education, public dialogue, and resilient design to coexist with the possibility of political violence (Friedman, 2009).

In short: we must be active participants in how our societies respond—not reactive victims.

The State’s Role: Containment Over Eradication

States, are prone to overreaction. Terrorism’s greatest power is not in what it destroys but in what it provokes. Richard English stated plainly: “The most serious danger currently posed by terrorists is their capacity to provoke ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses” (English, 2009). Whether it’s indefinite occupations, racial profiling, or rights-eroding laws, these state responses often deepen the grievances they aim to quash.

And yet, the infrastructure for smarter responses exists. UK policies like CONTEST and the Prevent Strategy contain valuable frameworks—interagency coordination, education, safeguarding. But they require transparency, community trust, and legal clarity (CONTEST, 2011; Prevent, 2011). And above all, they need to be grounded in the understanding that terrorism cannot be “won” against, only managed, contained, and defused.

Trump’s Gaza proposal, and the rhetoric of those who cheer it, ignore these lessons. In fact, they actively reverse them.

Ownership as Strategy

A provocative idea: perhaps the real way to end terrorism is to wrest ownership of fear away from terrorists. If their goal is to control public emotion, perception, and response—what if we stop handing them that control?

“If we could readdress our ownership of these essential aspects in our society, we would severely impact any leverage the terrorists would have in their campaigns.”

This concept—strategic ownership—deserves urgent attention. Imagine media that reports with restraint. Communities that engage in thoughtful civic reflection. States that prioritize resilience over retaliation.

This is not capitulation. It is clarity. It is a refusal to let terror set the agenda.

Final Thought: Echoes and Warnings

The “War on Terror” has taught us what doesn’t work. Israel’s current war risks repeating those mistakes, not learning from them. Trump’s latest outburst reminds us how quickly irresponsible language can escalate risk on a global scale.

If we want to avoid the next tidal wave of terrorism, we must return to basics: sober analysis, democratic restraint, critical media, and collective ownership. In the face of violence, it is these tools—not tanks or slogans—that preserve freedom.

About the Author

I joined the British military at 17 and served during a time when IRA threats were a lived reality. That early experience shaped a lifelong interest in understanding the dynamics of political violence—not just from the perspective of security, but from the deeper, human layers of memory, fear, and social fracture.

I went on to study Counter-terrorism at the University of St Andrews, and for many years I’ve worked in post-conflict environments around the world. My focus has been on helping communities recover—not simply through physical reconstruction, but by engaging with the memories of violence that linger in places, institutions, and people. I specialize in peacebuilding, social cohesion, and the long-term work of stabilization and recovery.

This blog reflects that ongoing journey. It’s rooted in both lived experience and a firm belief that learning to live with terrorism is not a sign of weakness—it’s a mark of maturity.