In the past, the term used was not “terrorism” but rather “fanaticism.” Today, “terrorism” has effectively supplanted “fanaticism.”
By framing terrorism as religious rather than political, its true nature is sanitized. Terrorism is portrayed as driven by mindless faith—inherently subjective and fanciful—rather than by objective grievances or a defense against supremacism. In this light, the “terrorist” becomes an object of anathema, a reckless devil to be destroyed without warning or dialogue. Above all, one must not engage with him. Labeling an adversary a “terrorist” miraculously shuts down debate. One becomes a terrorist through sheer, irrational zeal—acting gratuitously out of devotion to a mystical, trivial idea. Moreover, terrorism is deemed inherently vile, as it is the province of the weak. If we are not careful, the terrorist might deceive, bribe, or infect us.
The term “terrorist” functions as a new form of invalidation—casting suspicion on everyone—and as a way to render absurd any discourse or action that is unsettling, revolutionary, or aimed at social emancipation. It allowed Bush to speak of the “forces of Evil” versus the “forces of Good.”
The logic of the powerful requires this slur. The West wields this anathema unreservedly and unfailingly to silence and discredit all armed opposition. Zionism makes excessive use of the “terrorist” label, with the particular habit of indiscriminately adding the charge of “antisemitism” to the mix—to the point where even my dog could be called antisemitic. Branding someone a terrorist or an antisemite justifies every kind of duplicity;
Thus, the term “terrorism” operates as a reversal: the terrorists are always “the others.” Good is Good; Evil is Evil. The question is determining who represents Good and who represents Evil. This leads us to question the nature of propaganda, lies, and the media.
So how are Good and Evil constructed? Through an event that strikes terror into every imagination—a catastrophe, a massacre, an undeniable slaughter. The kind that mows down innocent victims. A catastrophe capable of commanding universal assent.
Then comes the need to avenge this murder of innocents, these victims cowardly consigned to the stake. Good cannot tolerate Evil, especially when it is gratuitous, absolute, and manifest. Defending innocence seems self-evident; meting out punishment becomes urgent when even the criminal may not be who we think, nor if the person is acting in self-defense. The possibility of a false-flag ruse arises.
Yet one obvious question presents itself: who benefits from the crime?
The example of September 11, 2001, pointed the finger at Arabs that very day, as if by magic. The enemy to be struck down had been identified without a shred of evidence—save for the discovery of passports supposedly belonging to Emirati citizens. It was a bit far-fetched: the killer was brazenly signing his crime, even while denying it. How could anyone believe—unless out of sheer racism—that Arabs stood to gain from such an attack? Islamophobia was an inevitable consequence. Clearly, such an attack would only rally the victimized nation. The retaliation would be diabolical, given the immense power of the American empire. Unless one believed in divine providence, one could hardly assume the Americans would beg for mercy, surrender, or yield anything at all. Arabs, however gullible they might have been, could never have imagined such a fantasy.
So why the Arabs? Beyond the racist argument—which presupposes that Arabs are inherently wicked, naive, and stupid—the absurdity is glaring. Not only did the Arabs have no vested interest in the matter, but they also lacked the funds, logistics, and capacity for secrecy required to orchestrate such a meticulously executed masterstroke. This event—as is often forgotten—demanded extraordinarily painstaking preparation: deep knowledge of the terrain, architecture, construction materials, explosive placement, aviation, pilots, volunteers, schedules, and local habits, as well as surgical synchronization. These requirements—involving specialized personnel and intelligence regarding the enemy—were beyond the Saudis’ independent capabilities, given their level of knowledge, expertise, and development at the time, as well as their distance from the actual site. Clearly, internal assistance was essential.
Moreover, there is a contradiction: if Arabs are stupid and uncultured, how could they have organized such brilliant logistics?
However, fostering rampant Islamophobia worldwide gave America a major advantage. They now had free rein to act against Arabs—against the embodiment of Evil. It was framed as self-defense against the entire Middle East. Thus, for twenty-five years, the Americans and the Israelis—who serve merely as an American vanguard—were able to kill, seize control of numerous countries, and destabilize the entire world to their own advantage. Indeed, one might well ask: why, after finding Emirati passports, did they attack innocent Iraq? The impact of 9/11 paved the way for all manner of excesses, including actions far removed from the events in America. Capitalizing shamelessly on the resulting shock, the Americans could invade any country and kill whomever they pleased. Emboldened by its status as a victim, America brutalized the world at will.
So, was 9/11 not simply a coup d’état orchestrated by the military-industrial complex—seeking new market opportunities—at a time when the incumbent political leadership was digging in its heels? Did we not witness a coup d’état instigated from within? Fomented internally, Machiavellian technical expertise could be brought to bear without restraint. The extraordinary takeover required could now be set in motion, mobilizing a vast, seasoned team. Obstacles to the envisioned scheme were finally bypassed; surveillance was hoodwinked, critical information was commandeered to orchestrate this criminal cataclysm, and specialized resources were marshaled for the macabre design. Moreover, in the twenty-five years since that upheaval, no serious independent investigation has been launched, casting doubt on the event’s true origins.
The toll: approximately 940,000 people (including civilians, military personnel, and combatants) have perished due to direct war-related violence in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen. Between 3.6 and 3.8 million people have died as a result of the collateral consequences of these conflicts (disease, the destruction of healthcare systems, malnutrition, a lack of clean water, and economic collapse).
The question then arises: who is the murderer, and who is the terrorist?
Riding the wave of both terrorism and Islamophobia, Israel would also—in a sense—gain a moral boost by positioning itself as the champion of the fight against antisemitism. Seeking a catastrophe on the scale of 9/11, Israel would engineer its own “October 7″—orchestrating a seismic event conducive to its hegemony, one whose sheer horror would make the blood run cold. Just as in America, there were those who knew beforehand what was being plotted; the Zionist regime had been warned repeatedly—and through various channels—of what was in the works, yet chose to ignore it. It was an unexpected windfall for those intent on genocide.
By loudly proclaiming the monstrous cruelty, the innocence of the victims, and the magnitude of the slaughter—which was eagerly amplified and depicted in even bloodier terms—the door was thrown open to the most inhumane excesses. A license to act had been granted; at last, there was “real” terrorism. Previously, Israel had begun to struggle to justify its glaring and monstrous abuses on the international stage: apartheid, draconian laws, administrative detention without trial, killings, the unjust imprisonment and torture of Palestinians, blockades, the control of food supplies for Palestinians in Gaza, and so on.
Today, since Arabs have supposedly been reduced to the status of animals, there are no longer any constraints against extermination, genocide, renewed colonization of the West Bank, or the invasion of Lebanon. Everything is justified on the grounds that Evil has attacked Good.
Turning a blind eye to Israel’s monstrosity, the colonial Zionist state claimed it was merely defending itself against a terrorist threat. Yet, state terrorism was precisely what it was. Arabs were waging a legitimate struggle against the horrors of apartheid, repression, and colonial subjugation. Bolstered by its status as a victim, Israel—much like America in its time—wreaked havoc on the world at will, with total impunity.
Thus, the death toll among Palestinians since the start of military operations exceeds 120,000—a figure that assumes many victims remain missing or buried beneath the rubble. Regarding war crimes, the conflict has also claimed the lives of hundreds of aid workers, personnel from international agencies, and media professionals.
To cap off the insolence and the deception, Israel can claim that this is not a colonial war, but a religious one—a war of Good against Evil, just like in the old days. Subjective belief—ultimately unacceptable—will be superimposed upon the objective truth of the facts. After all, how could one admit that Islam stands on the same level as Judaism? The battle is lost before it begins. Primed by 9/11, the entire Islamophobic West—claiming sole ownership of Civilization—will crush the wretched Arabs. It is an unequal fight. Through this mechanism of authority, through this religious and racist slur, any objective arguments put forward by Arabs are dismissed as primitive, obsolete, and inadmissible. Insolent and contemptuous, the Israelis can then unanimously assert that Palestine has been their land for millennia.
God is on our side; terrorism is on the other—the Palestinian side. You get the terrorist you want.
The views expressed in the article are the author’s own
Jean Ellezam is a Doctor of Sociology, born in Paris, in the working-class neighborhood of Montmartre. The events of May 1968 called everything into question. He enrolled in sociology at the University of Paris VIII in Vincennes. This avant-garde Parisian setting allowed him to see things differently. He married a Quebec woman in Paris and has continued his life in Montreal, with his wife and their two children, where he became a high school teacher and later a university professor.
Books in French by Jean Ellezam :
Israël : Innocence Meurtrière. LesÉditions sociologie, août 2024
Ils se dévoraient à coups de silence. Édition Néopol, octobre 2013.
L’invention de la femme. Montréal: Les Éditions sociologie, 2008, 438 pp. RENAUD BRAY
Groupe et capital. Un nouveau mode social pour produire le travailleur. Montréal: Les Éditions Hurtubise HMH, ltée, 1984, 261 pp.
Articles in English by Jean Ellezam :
https://paju.org/zionism-the-intelligence-of-deceit
PAJU Note: Addendum to Jean Ellezam’s article
“The terrorist and the policeman both come from the same basket.”Joseph Conrad, The Secret Agent (published 1907)
Ergo, the police state needs the threat of subversion to justify its own power and existence.
