Who is Salah Abdeslam really? the “fighter” to the rigid speech which justifies the attacks or the accused taken by the emotion which asked forgiveness with the victims at the time of its final interrogation? Since the start of the November 13 trial, his ambivalence has exasperated and intrigued. On the benches of lawyers and civil parties, everyone has tried to find meaning in their double discourse: where some see only duplicity and provocations, others believe they can guess the fluctuating sincerity of a man torn between two identities.
In addition to his expertise in the matter, the psychiatrist Daniel Zagury has an advantage: he is one of the few people to have been able to speak one-on-one with the accused since the start of the trial. Two months after the opening of the proceedings, on November 12, 2021, he visited Salah Abdeslam in prison to conduct a psychiatric examination. The conclusions he presented at the bar, Thursday, April 21, came into direct resonance with the questions that have been agitating the actors of this trial for several weeks.
Before exploring the “wobbles” of Salah Abdeslam, the expert comes back to an apparent paradox: he had to deal, during this interview, with a “ordinary human” engaged in a “totalitarian dehumanization process”. “Here we are confronted with the banality of evilhe begins, quoting the German philosopher Hannah Arendt. How could such an ordinary man participate in such a project of mass destruction? »
Evil “in the name of good”
the ” narrative “ of Salah Abdeslam’s jihadist commitment is similar to that of most radicalized subjects: “It was not his insensitivity that drove his radicalization, but conversely his receptivity to the suffering of Muslims around the world, particularly in Syria. Evil is almost never committed in the name of evilcomments the psychiatrist: it is almost always committed in the name of good. »
From there, continues the expert, “His commitment is presented as absolute: he loses his identity moorings, his singularity, his conflicts and his doubts. He enters a totalitarian system that thinks for him. This totalitarian arsenal protects him from the human he was before: the suffering of the victims of the attacks becomes an inevitable evil, they are no longer anything but the objectified representatives of a country to be fought”.
This new “shell” smothered the guilt felt by the dissolute young man from Molenbeek in the face of the suffering of his ” brothers “ in Syria. She also brought him narcissistic comfort and salvation: “The smallest anonymous is promised eternal life. »
You have 48.73% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.