Zitout’s Latest Masterpiece: “Kamel Daoud Is Not Anti-Regime”

On November 22, 2024, in a monologue on his YouTube channel, Mohamed Larbi Zitout claimed that Kamel Daoud is not anti-regime.

Zitout pointed to Daoud’s meeting with Abdelmadjid Tebboune in May 2021 as evidence, stating that if Algerian intelligence did not trust Daoud, they would not have allowed him to be close to Emmanuel Macron during the French President’s visit to Algeria. Zitout further argued that Daoud is “an adversary to Algeria and the Algerians” and that he is “at war with himself, with his nation, with his people, and not in conflict with the regime.
Le Mediterranee24 decided to systematically examine each of Zitout’s claims, contextualizing them within broader patterns of regime suppression and demonstrating how they align with official tactics to silence critical voices. By dissecting Zitout’s superficial critique alongside Daoud’s actual work, we reveal not just the weakness of these accusations, but their role in a larger campaign by the Algerian intelligence to delegitimize and intimidate independent intellectual discourse about Algeria’s past and present.
The stakes of this debate extend far beyond a simple YouTube polemic. At its core, this is about who has the right to narrate Algeria’s history, question its present, and imagine its future. As we will see, Zitout’s intervention, whether knowingly or not, serves to reinforce the military regime of Algiers, and the mechanisms of control that Daoud’s work seeks to expose and challenge.
Zitout Wrong Claim 1: “Kamel Daoud Meets Tebboune = Kamel Daoud Not Anti-Regime”
In this 3:56-minute video full of basic analytical thinking errors, painful to watch as it reveals the intellectual limits of an ex-diplomat expert in analysis, Zitout has exposed years of ignorance in barely four minutes. Mohamed Larbi Zitout paints Kamel Daoud as “not anti-regime”. He literally states – and we must repeat this twice to fully appreciate the depth of this analytical masterpiece: “Kamel Douad was received on May 24, 2021 in Mouradia Palace, and therefore he is not against the Algerian regime” and “he is not an adversary to the regime, and the proof of this is the debate with Tebboune 3 years prior to today”, literally. We repeat again: Mohamed Larbi Zitout literally states: “Kamel Douad was received on May 24, 2021 in Mouradia Palace, and therefore he is not against the Algerian regime” and “he is not an adversary to the regime, and the proof of this is the debate with Tebboune 3 years prior to today”, literally. By this logic, meeting with anyone becomes proof of your support to them. So, did Mohamed Boudiaf, who met with Khaled Nezzar and Mohamed Mediene, support the same system that later assassinated him? Actually, applying Zitout’s own equation where ‘meeting equals support’, his refusal to visit Mohamed Benhlima in Spain was perhaps his only moment of truth: by not meeting him, he clearly showed he never supported him – just pushed him towards deportation and into the hands of his torturers.
Zitout says that that meeting occurred at the Mouradia Palace, but omits to specify that Kamel Daoud was also with another Le Point colleague: Adlène Meddi. The interview covered the Hirak movement, elections, foreign relations, and Islam’s role in society. During this period of political tension, Tebboune sought to project stability and openness through this high-profile interview. The Algerian Press Service’s pre-publication release allowed the government to control the narrative, presenting Tebboune as a transparent, reform-minded leader through his “rare candor” on sensitive topics.
Contextualizing the Tebboune Meeting
The May 2021 meeting occurred during a critical period marked by multiple crises: MAK’s terrorist designation, COVID-19’s Delta wave, the Pegasus scandal, Kabylia forest fires, and deteriorating French-Algerian relations. Zitout’s simplistic equation (meeting = support) completely ignores this complex historical context. The Tebboune who hosted Le Point in May 2021 – still attempting to project democratic credentials – was markedly different from the increasingly authoritarian figure who would emerge through these successive crises. That such an interview took place does not indicate Kamel Daoud’s alignment with the regime. Rather, the regime needed Daoud’s credibility more than he needed theirs.

Just before the Le Point interview, the government escalated its crackdown by designating MAK as a terrorist organization and later expanded terrorism laws through Presidential Ordinance No. 21-08, enabling the targeting of political activists. The regime then orchestrated false flag operations, notably blaming MAK and Morocco for the Kabylia forest fires, to deflect from internal problems. This culminated in severed ties with Morocco in August 2021. The meeting with Kamel Daoud was clearly a strategic PR move to project an illusion of accessibility, not genuine openness. At that moment, Tebboune’s presidency was still building its authoritarian foundations, and needed figures like Daoud to boost its credibility. Zitout’s conflation of a single interaction with regime loyalty is both historically ignorant and analytically flawed.
Zitout Wrong Claim 2:” Kamel Guides Macron In Oran = Kamel Is Not Anti-Regime”
He further adds: “and when Macron came to Algeria, he (Kamel Daoud) was his guide,” and “if Algerian intelligence didn’t trust Kamel Daoud, they wouldn’t have allowed him to be that close to Emmanuel Macron.”
Zitout’s argument that Daoud’s proximity to French President Macron during the Oran visit somehow proves he isn’t ‘anti-regime’ is not only nonsensical but reveals a fundamental ignorance of diplomatic protocols. Presidential security and engagement protocols are managed by the Elysée Palace and France’s Quai d’Orsay, in coordination with the French Embassy in Algiers and Consulate in Oran – not by Algerian intelligence.
The diplomatic process involves both formal and informal channels. Official protocol exchanges and information notes flow between the Elysée and El Mouradia, and between the Quai d’Orsay and Les Annassers. Before these formal exchanges, informal discussions and preparatory meetings take place to arrange the visit schedule. Kamel Daoud’s inclusion was decided during this preliminary stage – not by Algerian intelligence, but at Macron’s request, following suggestions from the French Embassy and Consulate. Yes, the Algerian intelligence still get a copy and are of course aware of the flow of the conversation through their SG at the Algerian MFA.
As during his previous visits to Algeria in February and December 2017 (when he separately met businessmen Ali Haddad and Issad Rebrab), Macron aimed to engage in dialogue with local figures in Oran. This included Kamel Daoud and Mohamed Affane, an entrepreneur and philanthropist. However, Affane paid a heavy price. Officially, the sanctions against him, including the closure of his hotels, such as Hôtel Liberté, and the Yves Saint Laurent museum he had restored, were attributed by Saïd Saayoud, the Wali of Oran, to non-compliance with regulations. However, a well-informed source on the procedures for protecting foreign diplomats revealed to us that the real reason was an act of reprisal. This came after Affane refused to organize a dinner in a location imposed by the security services. These services demanded that the dinner be held in a restaurant located in the Essidikia district (formerly Gambetta), where they would have had visibility and, likely, means of surveillance. Affane refused, which irritated the “Magenta” services in Oran.
As a result, the services lost track of Macron “from the radars” for two hours, revealing a French president acting autonomously and engaging in private tête-à-tête meetings in Oran. Zitout’s fanciful hypothesis that the Algerian military regime’s intelligence services orchestrated Kamel Daoud’s inclusion in Macron’s visit is false. Kamel Daoud’s inclusion in the program stems from his intellectual stature, not from an unfounded “green light” that defies all protocol and diplomacy logic, from regime agents. Mohamed Larbi Zitout lacks the intellectual and up-to-date knowledge necessary to grasp this and makes a mistake we call a psychological error. Zitout subtly pushes the notion that the Algerian military regime’s intelligence services exercise total control over everything and everyone, to the extent of imposing Kamel Daoud on Macron’s program. This argument is also put forward by Abdou Semmar, as we demonstrated in our previous analysis.

Zitout Wrong Claim 3: “You Beat Your Wife = Your Book Is Bad”
Zitout’s character assassination of Kamel Daoud demonstrates his inability to separate personal allegations from intellectual work. By reducing Daoud’s contributions and literary achievements to the unverified claim that he “once beat his wife,” Zitout effectively dismisses his ideas without engaging with them. Such a reductionist approach is intellectually dishonest and reveals a disturbing inability, or unwillingness, to grapple with the substance of Daoud’s criticisms of Algerian society and the regime.
This tactic is not new. As Hichem Aboud has pointed out in discussions about controversial figures like Habib Souaïdia or Mohamed Samraoui, the character or morality of an author does not necessarily invalidate the facts they present or the arguments they pose. Both Souaïdia and Samraoui were implicated in serious moral faults, including participation in extrajudicial detention and torture, yet their books presented critical truths about Algeria’s dark periods that demanded engagement. Zitout, however, seems either incapable of making this distinction or deliberately avoids it, reducing himself to the level of petty moralistic attacks that bypass meaningful critique.
Zitout’s claim against Daoud, which centers on an alleged domestic violence judgment, is fueled by unverified gossip rather than concrete evidence. He provides no court documents, no testimony from legal hearings, and no supporting facts to substantiate his allegations. He openly admits to “recently confirming” the claim, yet bases his argument almost entirely on hearsay. Such an unreliable witness raises serious questions about Zitout’s credibility and intentions.
Examining Kamel Daoud’s Actual Book:
If Mohamed Larbi Zitout had read Kamel Daoud’s book before his three-minute “genius” analysis, have revealed these critical facts:
Article 46 of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation
From the outset, Daoud confronts the systemic suppression of historical truth. On page 2, he exposes Article 46 of the legal code, which explicitly criminalizes any discussion of the Civil War: “it is forbidden to teach, to evoke, to draw, to film, and to talk about the war of the 1990s. Nothing at all.” This censorship carries severe penalties – three to five years imprisonment and substantial fines for anyone daring to speak out.
Article 46 of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation legally protects Mohamed Mediene, Said Chengriha, Abdelkader Haddad, Djebbar Mehenna and Hamid Oubelaïd from any investigation or prosecution in Algeria, by criminalizing any critical discussion of their role during the civil war under penalty of 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment and substantial fines.
Throughout the novel, Daoud methodically deconstructs the official narrative:
War Memory
Chapter 26 presents a powerful metaphor of the War of Independence as “an elderly lady who is very rich and careful with her jewels,” commemorated through countless monuments, media, and memorials. This stands in stark contrast to the Civil War’s victims, who are denied even basic recognition, no commemorative dates, no public acknowledgment, only their scars as testament.

On Chapter 26: “Là, sur la droite, on croise des vendeurs de crèmes glacées, un commissariat, puis un hôtel où les prostituées s’abritaient il y a des décennies. Il y a vingt ans, les barbus ont déposé des bombes ici. Au virage, on monte vers le consulat de France et ensuite on retrouve le grand Hôtel Royal dont j’aime scruter la façade ouvragée comme un livre ancien. Regarde ça : sur le boulevard Émir Abd El Kader, des hommes s’assoient en groupes et discutent à la manière des maquignons. Ils ont l’air centenaires, ridés, certains agitent des cannes, mais c’est dans leurs yeux que tu repères leurs vies jalouses de tout. Ce sont les vétérans de la guerre de libération. Eux, ils possèdent tout pour qu’on ne désapprenne jamais leur histoire : un drapeau, des milliers de photos de gens morts durant leurs batailles, des armes rouillées qu’ils exhibent dans leur musée à l’est d’Oran. De l’argent, des médailles, des statues, des rues, des émissions de télévision, des chants, des biographies sans fin… Cette guerre contre la France semble être une dame âgée très riche et très sourcilleuse de ses bijoux. Je l’ai bien détestée depuis mon égorgement raté, je l’ai haïe, car elle est comme une sœur aînée qui prend toute la place. Cette guerre se comporte comme un enfant unique qui s’empare de toutes les commémorations. Elle s’accapare le blanc, le rouge, le vert, les lampes et les foules, les parades militaires. Et nous, les survivants de la guerre civile ? Rien. On ne nous accorde pas une seule date nationale, pas un seul souvenir à s’accrocher au cou. Nous avons à peine droit aux cicatrices. Tout ce que j’ai pu lui opposer, à cette histoire de la bataille contre la France, ce sont mes sept tatouages et c’est déjà trop. Les gens ici ne te parleront jamais de la guerre qui a tué les miens le 31 décembre 1999. Je passe souvent par ce boulevard, et ces vieillards qui prétendent avoir vaincu la mort française se trouvent toujours là à nous épier, nous les nés-plus-tard, à nous scruter comme si nous étions des voleurs. Je détestais réciter cette légende nationale à l’école ; le professeur d’histoire ne comprenait pas pourquoi je décrochais de si mauvaises notes dans cette matière. Il ne voyait pas que je voulais également une voix pour ma guerre. Après dix ans de tueries, nous n’avons rien pu obtenir comme butin, pas même des corps. Pas même une parole.” – This powerful passage from Chapter 26 merits careful analysis. Through vivid street-level description of Oran, Daoud masterfully contrasts two versions of historical memory: the carefully curated remembrance of the War of Independence versus the enforced forgetting of the Civil War. His metaphor of the Independence War as a “rich elderly lady jealous of her jewels” brilliantly captures how official history monopolizes public space and collective memory, while survivors of more recent traumas are denied even basic acknowledgment. Isn’t it true? Can Larbi Zitout deny that Boulevard de la Soumam in Oran is lined with bars, and that the adjacent alleys harbor illicit brothels? Ask any local from Oran; they’ll confirm it. How can Kamel Daoud be labeled an enemy of Algeria and the Algerian people for simply stating in his book, truthfully, and for the world to see, that bars and illicit brothels exist near the Royal Hotel? Moreover, isn’t the War of Independence glorified to such an extent that it numbs individual thought? These undeniable realities, which Zitout seeks to refute, serve as the factual foundation of Daoud’s incisive social critique.
Historical Manipulation
Chapter 29 delivers a multilayered critique of the regime’s historical manipulation. Opening with perhaps the most damning indictment – “And us, the survivors of the civil war? Nothing. We are not granted a single national date, not a single memory to cling to. We are barely entitled to the scars” – the chapter systematically dismantles official narratives about the Civil War. While the regime solely blames Islamic extremists, Daoud traces a more complex web of events, from the rise of extremism in the 1980s to the systematic targeting of secular spaces and journalists, suggesting state complicity in the conflict’s outbreak. The chapter’s genius lies in its stark contrast: while the War of Independence enjoys meticulous documentation and commemoration, the Civil War’s timeline remains intentionally blurred, its victims denied even basic recognition. This selective approach to memory reveals not just negligence but a calculated strategy of historical erasure.
Systematic Erasure
Chapter 32 and 38: These consecutive chapters reveal the regime’s two-pronged approach to historical erasure. Chapter 32, through Aïssa’s devastating personal account, demonstrates the immediate, brutal suppression of individual testimony. When Aïssa attempts to share his war experiences, authorities not only silence him but actively rewrite his narrative – transforming his torture into a mere “motorcycle accident.” This intimate portrait of suppression then expands into Chapter 38’s broader exposé of systematic historical manipulation through the cynically named “Réconciliation” process.
This so-called reconciliation, rather than fostering healing, functioned as a calculated pact between “murderers and murderers.” Former terrorists were coached to minimize their roles. They were instructed to claim they were merely “cooks in the mountains” to receive amnesty. The regime’s determination to blur responsibility extended even to obscuring the war’s end date, creating a temporal ambiguity that serves their narrative control. Together, these chapters illuminate how personal trauma and national memory are equally subject to official revision, creating a manufactured amnesia that serves power rather than truth.
Zitout Wrong Claim 4: “This Man Is Not An Adversary to the Regime, He Is an Adversary to Algeria and the Algerians, to the Values of the Algerians and Algeria”
In his video, Mohamed Larbi Zitout alleged that Kamel Daoud, currently supported and promoted by segments of the French right-wing, far-right, and parts of the left, is not in opposition to the Algerian regime but rather in conflict with himself, his nation, and his people. He further claimed that Daoud has maintained a mutually beneficial relationship with the regime.
Zitout’s accusation, that Daoud is “at war with his nation” rather than challenging its regime, is an obvious attempt to obscure the crucial issues raised in Houris. By portraying Daoud as an adversary of Algerians and their values, Zitout diverts attention from Daoud’s incisive critique of the systemic impunity granted by Article 46 of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. This article grants legal immunity to high-ranking military figures such as Mohamed Mediene, Said Chengriha, Abdelkader Haddad, Djebbar Mehenna, and Hamid Oubelaïd by criminalizing public discussion of their roles during the Black Decade. Violators face 3-5 years in prison and heavy fines, ensuring that no one can question or investigate their crimes.
What Is Being Silence When Kamel Daoud Is Silenced: Hideous Crimes and Blanket Impunity
In Houris, Kamel Daoud confronts this injustice and highlights the frustration of victims of the Black Decade, whose suffering has been overshadowed by the glorification of the War of Independence. Daoud exposes how Article 46 protects individuals, like the aforementioned military figures, several of whom are still in positions of power (with the exception of Djebbar Mehenna, who retired recently), from being held accountable.
Evidence from Habib Souaidia’s testimony implicates Said Chengriha in the deaths of at least 40 people (with some estimates as high as 184). These crimes include: cold-blooded executions, Orders for the summary execution of prisoners, Immediate killings of captured fugitives, torture of detainees, the destruction of evidence documenting torture, and, participation in war crimes that violated Geneva Conventions and military codes of conduct.
Similarly, Abdelkader Haddad has been accused of overseeing the organization of mass graves in Mitidja, Blida, during the Black Decade. Sergeant-Chief Houari’s testimony describes how Haddad directly commanded the burial of civilians in black bags, with lime powder “el jir” thrown on the bodies to accelerate decomposition. Crimes committed outside military barracks reportedly required additional payments, and Sergeant Houari emphasized how these graves became a haunting reminder of the atrocities under Haddad’s jurisdiction.
What Is Being Silence When Kamel Daoud Is Silenced: The Assassination of General El Arbi Bennacer
The case of General El Arbi Bennacer, assassinated in 2005, further underscores the deadly consequences of exposing such atrocities. Bennacer, tasked by President Bouteflika to investigate past crimes, uncovered mass graves and secret detention centers where innocent civilians had been tortured and killed before being declared “disappeared.” Before these findings could be revealed, Bennacer was assassinated in a car accident which was not investigated. His son, Toufik Bennacer, later released videos detailing these allegations, including the existence of detention centers used to hide systematic torture and murder. Today, Toufik faces an international arrest warrant, not for criminal acts but for criticizing Said Chengriha and his involvement in war crimes and corruption. His revelations remain suppressed under Article 46, which criminalizes even the discussion of such heinous crimes.
What Is Being Silence When Kamel Daoud Is Silenced: Boudiaf’s Assassination
Historic allegations are also erased. For instance, during public broadcasts, Nacer Boudiaf, son of assassinated President Mohamed Boudiaf, explicitly accused Mohamed Mediene (known as Toufik) of orchestrating his father’s assassination. Allegations also implicate Djebbar Mehenna, who reportedly conducted covert campaigns tied to disappearances and mass killings while directing the CTRI in Blida. These crimes, along with countless others, including systemic torture, kidnappings, and extrajudicial executions, are protected by the sweeping impunity of Article 46. Discussion of these allegations is not just discouraged; it is met with severe legal punishment.
Zitout’s Distraction on What Kamel Daoud Is Highlighting
This systemic injustice is the very absurdity Kamel Daoud critiques in Houris. From the opening pages of his novel, Daoud dismantles the legal silencing of wartime atrocities and reveals how these untouchable truths foster a culture of impunity. He illustrates how victims of the Black Decade are erased, abandoned in mass graves, labeled as terrorists, or rendered invisible by the regime’s narrative. Despite the risk, Daoud dares to commemorate these lost voices, challenging official history’s single-minded glorification of the War of Independence.
Yet, instead of engaging with this sobering critique, Mohamed Larbi Zitout resorts to personal attacks. He maligns Daoud by accusing him of being “an adversary to Algeria” and its values. Such claims are not only baseless but serve a deliberate purpose: to discredit Daoud’s exposure of the regime’s crimes.
The Impact of Zitout’s Wrong Claims: Intimidation, Lobotomization, and Anesthetization of Collective Critical Thinking
In Houris, Kamel Daoud examines the Algerian regime’s deliberate strategy of historical erasure, a campaign designed to intimidate and “lobotomize” collective critical thinking, thereby anesthetizing public memory and identity. This strategy exploits multiple mechanisms, including religion, legal frameworks, collective guilt, and historical revisionism, all working in tandem to suppress discourse and shield the powerful.
One of the most insidious tools employed by the regime is its alignment with religious leaders tied to the military establishment. These leaders frame acts of remembering and recounting past violence as sinful, spiritually corrupting, and divisive. By labeling critical reflection on the Black Decade as a moral failing, the regime cultivates a culture of shame, silencing discourse about the horrors of the civil war. Their doctrine of universal guilt, proclaiming that “everyone has killed, everyone is dead, and we have all stolen something”, diffuses accountability across society, obscuring the true architects of the violence. This rhetoric paralyzes accountability by creating a blanket of shared culpability, rendering justice impossible and memory futile.
This tactic is reinforced by Article 46 of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, which criminalizes public critique of the state’s role during the conflict. Under this law, dissent is labeled an attack on national honor and stability. Meanwhile, history is sanitized, as state agents implicated in atrocities are portrayed as harmless figures, while the voices of victims are erased. These revisions normalize impunity and perpetuate a narrative that denies justice and truth to those who suffered. Ultimately, these mechanisms create a society paralyzed by its inability to confront the past, enforce accountability, or demand justice.
Through these tools of suppression, the regime consolidates its grip on power, creating an environment in which individual voices are silenced, victims are forgotten, and those who dare to challenge the state are labeled enemies of the nation. Daoud’s analysis underscores the enduring impact of Algeria’s civil war, emphasizing the need for individual courage to challenge this hegemonic narrative despite the consequences of state persecution.
The Impact of Zitout’s Wrong Claims: The Suppression and Strategic Deflection
By attacking Kamel Daoud rather than addressing the atrocities highlighted in Houris, Mohamed Larbi Zitout deflects attention away from the crimes protected under Article 46. Notably, figures such as Said Chengriha, Mohamed Mediene, Abdelkader Haddad, Djebbar Mehenna, and Hamid Oubelaïd, the key actors implicated in civil war atrocities, all remain shielded by this blanket legal immunity. Zitout’s deflection not only distracts from these crimes but also benefits those in power by silencing critical voices and stifling scrutiny of the regime’s past actions.
Like the works of Boualem Sansal, Kamel Daoud’s novels challenge Algeria’s systemic culture of repression, often at significant personal cost. The regime’s attacks on Daoud and Sansal clearly transcend literary critique. They function as instruments of suppression, designed to silence intellectuals and dismantle important public debates. By portraying Daoud as an “enemy of Algerians,” Zitout reinforces the regime’s campaign of intimidation, undermining dissent while fostering a culture of fear and self-censorship within Algerian society, both domestically and abroad.
This campaign fits into a broader effort by the Algerian regime to maintain control through manipulation and fear. Zitout’s criticism actively contributes to this “lobotomization” and “anesthetization” of public discourse. By focusing on trivial distractions, personal attacks, and baseless allegations, Zitout assists in diverting attention from the important truths Daoud courageously exposes in Houris. Ultimately, this aligns Zitout with the regime’s goal of ensuring impunity for those in power, suppressing justice, and preventing meaningful critique of Algeria’s past.
The Impact of Zitout’s Wrong Claims: Amplifying the Algerian Military Regime’s Narrative
Zitout’s attempts to discredit Kamel Daoud mirror tactics used by the Algerian regime to silence dissent. Unlike Zitout’s baseless claims, Lemediterraneen24 had insider knowledge regarding the nomination of Kamel Daoud for the Goncourt Prize, including advanced confirmation of his nomination a day before its official announcement. We also knew of the regime’s campaigns of intimidation targeting Daoud and the jury through anonymous threats, warning messages, and coercion aimed at sabotaging his chances of recognition.
It was further revealed that the regime attempted to weaponize Daoud’s personal life, specifically threatening to “undig” details of his marital past as leverage against both him and the Goncourt jury. These coordinated efforts sought not only to undermine Daoud’s literary contributions but also to discredit him on a personal level, enforcing fear as a method of control.
Alarmingly, Mohamed Larbi Zitout echoes this rhetoric deployed by the Algerian intelligence apparatus, amplifying the same discourse that underpins the regime’s smear campaigns. Zitout’s alignment with these intimidation tactics, whether intentional or not, positions him as an accomplice to the regime’s strategy of suppression. By discrediting Daoud, Zitout effectively provides an echo chamber for the regime’s narrative, bolstering its efforts to silence dissent, suppress intellectual freedom, and maintain an oppressive status quo.
Through his wrongful claims, Zitout not only damages Daoud’s reputation but also shields the regime’s ongoing atrocities from scrutiny, denying justice to the victims of Algeria’s painful past.
Do you now see whose interests Mohamed Larbi Zitout is defending? Do you see who is truly afraid of the questions raised by Kamel Daoud, and why?

Conclusion
Zitout’s attack on Kamel Daoud represents more than just a misguided critique; it exemplifies the broader mechanisms of intellectual suppression in contemporary Algeria. Through our analysis of his four main claims, we have demonstrated how Zitout’s arguments not only fail on their merits but actively reinforce the regime’s tactics of silencing dissent. His superficial and reductionist critique aligns with the regime’s broader strategy of ostracizing Daoud from anti-regime circles and isolating him from the Algerian national and diaspora communities.
Daoud’s work, particularly ‘Houris,’ stands as a powerful example to the importance of preserving historical memory and challenging official narratives. His willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about Algeria’s past and present makes him not an enemy of Algeria, as Zitout claims, but rather one of its most valuable voices for change. The regime’s attempts to discredit Daoud, whether through direct intimidation or through proxies like Mohamed Larbi Zitout and Abdou Semmar reveal their fear of honest intellectual discourse about Algeria’s challenges.

Le Mediterranee24 will continue to expose such attempts at intellectual suppression and support those who dare to defend the military regime of Algiers’s propaganda.

lemediterraneen24