The episode of 'Mawazin' aired on March 25, 2026, addresses the complex relationship between politics and ethics, shedding light on what it describes as double standards in Western discourse. Universal values are raised as slogans, yet they are subjected to tests of interest when they turn into practical decisions.
The episode began with sharp questions regarding the place of ethics in international politics, especially in light of contemporary wars from Ukraine to Gaza, where humanitarian values seem to be applied selectively. Some lives are counted meticulously, while others are reduced to mere statistics.
Details of the Event
Program host Ali Al-Sind raised a central issue regarding the nature of politics, questioning whether it is inherently distant from moral idealism or if the talk of the "art of the possible" is merely a cover to justify abuses of power when they conflict with declared values. In this context, Joseph Massad, a professor of politics and modern Arab thought at Columbia University, clarified that historically, politics has not been separate from moral claims; rather, it has always sought to present itself as based on a value system, even when these values are violated.
Massad indicated that the issue lies not in the absence of ethics in politics but in the rephrasing of ethics to serve power, transforming ethics into a justificatory discourse used to rationalize policies, even those that contradict the principles these regimes profess.
Context and Background
Massad discussed the idea of the "social contract" as a foundation for the formation of ethics within the modern state, noting that these ethics are not objective but are defined according to the ideological school adopted by the state or society. In the context of philosophical debate, he reviewed differing views among Western thinkers regarding the relationship between the state and ethics, with some seeing the necessity of adherence to ethics and others justifying its separation, reflecting a lack of global consensus on the definition of political ethics itself.
He pointed out that nationalism, which has risen strongly since the 19th century, has reordered the hierarchy of values such that "national interest" takes precedence over any universal consideration, making ethics subject to the calculations of conflict between states. He touched on the evolution of the concept of human rights in Europe, explaining that it began by excluding large groups such as women and slaves, before witnessing gradual expansion, yet remained governed by an exceptional legacy that is reinterpreted in line with the present.
Consequences and Impact
In a historical reading, Massad considered that European colonialism was not merely a political or economic project but was founded on a justificatory moral system based on the idea of a "civilizing mission" that granted Europe legitimacy to dominate other peoples. He explained that this vision relied on cultural and racial classifications that placed Europe at the top of the "civilizational ladder," while categorizing other peoples in lower ranks, providing a moral basis for justifying colonialism and reshaping the world according to its interests.
With the end of World War I, this system evolved to take a new form through the mandate system, presented as a step towards independence, while remaining essentially an extension of colonial control in a modern guise.
Impact on the Arab Region
Conversely, Massad observed that the Arab world has not witnessed a stable model of political ethics under predominantly non-democratic regimes that rely on a mix of ideological hegemony and repression to entrench their legitimacy. He argued that the difference between democratic and non-democratic regimes lies not in the essence of practice but in the degree of use of repressive tools, as Western regimes also resort to repression when they fail to impose their ideological hegemony.
In this context, he emphasized that the concept of ethics itself is not fixed but is redefined according to the interests of power, citing the justification of practices such as repression and torture under the pretext of "national security," which becomes a supreme moral value.
He also addressed the role of political opposition, distinguishing between "loyal" opposition that does not touch the essence of the regime and "disloyal" opposition that is repressed under the pretext of threatening stability, reflecting the limits of ethics in actual political practice.
In critiquing Western discourse, he noted that concepts such as "democracy," "liberation," and "reform" are sometimes used as tools to reproduce hegemony, presenting them as a modern extension of colonial discourse.
He highlighted the role of intellectual and academic elites in producing these discourses, asserting that several thinkers and research institutions have contributed to justifying imperial policies, whether through theorization or providing consultations.
Massad also addressed the deliberate use of terminology in Western media, noting that descriptors such as "response" and "collateral damage" are used carefully to reshape reality, serving a particular narrative and softening the impact of violations.
In discussing the Palestinian issue, he reviewed the transformations of the Palestinian image in Western discourse from refugee to "terrorist" and then to a conditional "victim" not allowed to exercise its right to resistance without losing sympathy.
Despite noting a relative shift in Western public opinion, especially with the rise of student movements and social media, Massad expressed skepticism about the ability of this shift to bring about actual change in policies, which remain hostage to strategic interests.
He affirmed that continued Western support for Israel is linked to its function in serving these interests, arguing that any real change will only occur if Israel becomes a burden on these calculations, which has not yet happened.
Massad concluded that the crisis lies not in the absence of values but in the selective application of them, where ethics become a flexible tool used to justify power, leading to the undermining of international law and emptying it of its substance.