El Akkad examines how sanitized language functions as a critical tool for imperial powers to distance themselves from the moral implications of their violence. He argues that the deliberate manipulation of language serves not just as a rhetorical strategy but as an essential mechanism that enables the continuation of violence while maintaining the empire’s morally neutral or positive self-image.

He highlights how the use of passive voice and strategic linguistic omissions erase agency from acts of violence, protecting perpetrators from moral scrutiny. For instance, The Guardian headline he critiques—”Palestinian journalist hit in head by bullet during raid on terror suspect’s home” (70)—exemplifies this pattern, where the bullet becomes a disembodied agent rather than something fired by a specific person with intent. This linguistic sleight-of-hand creates a world where violence simply happens rather than being perpetrated. El Akkad writes: “[I]t is not simply a case of hiding behind passive language so as to say as little as possible, risk as little criticism as possible” (70). The strategic absence of a perpetrator who fired the bullet shifts focus from moral responsibility to an apparently neutral description of events. This pattern extends beyond individual headlines to entire frameworks of understanding, in which acts of violence are systematically divorced from their agents when those agents represent imperial interests. El Akkad argues that the linguistic distance created between action and actor allows individuals to observe violence without confronting their own connection to it, providing emotional and moral insulation for institutional violence.

El Akkad also argues that this pattern operates not only through what is explicitly stated but also through what is implicitly assumed. He connects post-9/11 practices of labeling military victims as “terrorist[s] until proven otherwise” with the broader pattern of making victims culpable for their own deaths (72). He says that this practice creates a circular logic where the act of being killed becomes evidence of a person’s guilt, making the victim responsible for their own death. El Akkad extends this analysis to Palestine, where the scale of violence requires increasingly extreme characterizations of Palestinian victims. He writes: “Soon, Palestinians become indistinguishable from Nazis, and then worse than Nazis. As their eradication continues, they must transform the worst human beings on earth, the weight of their deaths only then sufficiently lightened” (54). The mechanics of this linguistic transformation reveal how sanitized language operates not merely as euphemism but as a comprehensive system for managing moral perception; it facilitates dehumanization to match escalating violence.

He further describes how linguistic frameworks divide victims into moral categories by using different frameworks for describing violence against “worthy” victims versus those deemed outside the boundaries of full moral consideration. El Akkad says: “It may as well be the case that there exist two entirely different languages for the depiction of violence against victims of empire and victims of empire” (70). He explains that “[v]ictims of empire, those who belong, those for whom we weep, are murdered, subjected to horror” (70). In contrast, “Victims of empire aren’t murdered, their killers aren’t butchers, their killers aren’t anything at all. Victims of empire don’t die, they simply cease to exist” (70). This dual linguistic system creates comprehensive narrative frameworks in which certain deaths trigger moral outrage while others remain technically visible yet morally invisible. El Akkad argues that the separation between these frameworks is maintained through consistent patterns of language that shape how violence is perceived, discussed, and remembered. He says that these divergent linguistic frameworks extend beyond media coverage to structure political discourse, cultural production, and personal understanding, creating comprehensive systems for processing violence that protect empire from moral reckoning.