The resistance and Iran between the political and the moral... A discussion with Moataz Al-Khatib's article

The relationship of Hamas with Iran, especially with regard to the methods of expressing this relationship, is still a matter of great controversy in the Arab world, and this controversy hardly fades until it returns to the fore with each new event, as happened in the recent round of escalation between the “Israeli” occupation and the Palestinian resistance. .

Dr. Moataz Al-Khatib wrote on Al Jazeera Net an article entitled "The Resistance, Iran and the Problem of the Relationship Between the Political and the Moral" in an attempt to approach the relationship from this angle.

This article is a discussion with Dr. Moataz's article, dedicated to discussing the position and statements of Hamas, and what is related to the relationship with Iran exclusively, and not the Assad regime, for example. This is, in my opinion, a different discussion.

starting points

In order for the dialogue to be fruitful and achieve the desired goal, it is better to define its premises and some concepts related to the topic, the most important of which are:

First

: The discussion with the idea, i.e. the political and ethical dialectic on the subject, in general, and not with the doctor, even if his article was appropriate for that.

Second:

I agree with him that there is a debate between what is political and what is moral in the matter.

Third:

I do not deny the mistakes made by some Hamas officials, and I have previously criticized some of them, but I address the issue in general without going into details.

Fourth:

I agree with the doctor in some of what he said to one degree or another, especially the link between occupation and tyranny, but I dedicate the article to what I disagree with.

Fifth:

There is a paradox that should not be overlooked, which is that criticism related to the moral dimension is used exclusively against Palestinian resistance movements, especially Hamas, and also exclusively in relation to Iran.

The justification put forward here is that it is a national liberation movement with an Islamic background, and this is true, but it is not sufficient for this exclusivity or the transfer of selectivity.

We do not fall for the same reproach/criticism/attack, nor the same dialectic in the relationship of other parties to Iran, or the relationship of any party with Russia, the largest supporter of the Assad regime, or the relationship of revolutionary parties with regional states and global powers that have committed crimes against the region and its peoples.

All political entities, states and actors below them, seek self-sufficiency in order to avoid pressures and a desire for independence and sovereignty, but this is very impossible except in the case of some great powers.

Moreover, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, in his aforementioned speech, thanked Egypt - for example - before Iran, despite the thorny relationship of the Egyptian regime with Hamas itself, but this did not receive similar criticism. Rather, the irony is that some Egyptian opponents criticized his thanks to Iran and did not criticize his thanks. Egypt.

And if it is said that the sectarian dimension is what amplifies the matter, this dimension does not obligate Hamas or other parties that do not look at the matter from a sectarian but rather a political angle.

In the definition of moral

The position of morals and values ​​in international relations is an old and renewed debate, and perhaps the pioneers of the realist theory, who believe that foreign policy is based on interests according to the utterance of power, and not according to some moral system, are the pioneers of the realist theory.

Morgenthau sees that the dialectic between the moral and the political exists to prevent the second from evading the judgment of the first and its moral guidance, while Mearsheimer explains that institutions and values ​​are treated as reducible to the interests of the materialistic powers.

Indeed, some realist school theorists assert that "realizing the interest" is the essence of morality and virtue in politics.

We do not fully accept this logic, but the philosophy of the matter is close, within the framework of the rule “whatever a duty is not accomplished without it is an obligation.”

The support that resistance and liberation movements receive is essential to their survival and steadfastness, as well as to embed them in their enemy.

And if this is true in general, it is necessary in the Palestinian case, which is facing a colonial and settlement occupation backed by the first power in the world.

All political entities, states and actors below them, seek self-sufficiency in order to avoid pressures and a desire for independence and sovereignty, but this is very impossible except in the case of some great powers.

Indeed, some antagonistic powers cooperate with each other in circumstances if their interests converge, such as the shifting of alliances in the wars of the European continent in recent centuries, Turkey's cooperation in its war of independence with the Soviet Union, and the Iran-Contra issue with the United States.

Finally, seeking excuses from large countries and depriving a national liberation movement under difficult circumstances such as Hamas and its sisters is neither politically nor morally correct, as it is the weakest, most compelled, and least capable of self-sufficiency and independence.

Hamas and Iran

Limiting the relationship of Hamas with the Iranian Republic to the material dimension, but rather financial support in particular, is an inaccurate assessment.

In my article, “Hamas and Iran: Facts Obscured by Reality and Polarization,” I explained the factors of Iran’s importance to Hamas, the most important of which are two: Iran is the only regional country that does not recognize the Zionist entity and calls for the liberation of all of Palestine, and that it is the only country that openly acknowledges supporting the resistance with money, weapons, and so on. .

Hence, if we add this important dimension to all of the above, then the moral debate is not whether the resistance movements accept support from them, but rather the extent to which that support affects them, which we will discuss next.

Dr. Moataz says that “purity is not required for those who provide support” to a resistance movement or national liberation - and this is true - but that, in his opinion, does not remove the problem, as “the consequences of this subsidy” should be considered, and “political investment to which all support is dependent” should be considered. .

We say that a distinction should be made between an investment in support by the supporter and a pledge by the one who obtains it, and a distinction should be made between statements and policies, as the two matters cannot be viewed as one thing.

There is no doubt that Iran (and others) will seek to invest. Countries are not charitable societies, but rather make their policies based on their visions and interests. But has Hamas made concessions to it that prove its dependence on it?

Hamas did not bleed in Syrian blood, nor did it support Iran’s regional policies, but rather repeatedly confirmed that it cooperates exclusively with it in the face of the occupation. It disagreed with it and slept with it in more than one stage, such as the 2006 elections and the position on the Syrian revolution. It always fought its battles with a clear Palestinian agenda, and it does not seem that it allowed the situation The Shiite religious or cultural movement in Gaza, which it administers, even struggled with the "Al-Sabireen" movement that sought to do so, which negates any dependence on its agenda and decision.

Dr. Al-Khatib says that "the partner of the Mujahid is a Mujahid" according to our religious and moral perceptions, and that this causes a problem in the case of Iran. The truth is that it is a partner in the political sense, and as for the religious meaning, I think that it does not apply here - and I am not one to consider it - as there are great differences between the individual and the state, but the resistance did not lie when it said that Tehran provided support, even if its level had recently declined, and it would not have been right to thank The resistance is anyone who made a contribution, even if limited, and considers him a partner in the victory, then excludes from that the party that had a tangible contribution to arming it, especially its missile force, which was the title of the confrontation.

The doctor claims that “thanks to Iran remain silent about its crimes,” which “makes gratitude absolute and not bound by one act without another.”

The truth is that this is inaccurate. The first-ranking leaders of Hamas have repeatedly stated their refusal to support Iran's regional policies. Meshaal, Haniyeh and others have made clear statements about "the difference with Iran in Syria" and "whoever supports us in truth, we do not support in falsehood."

But it is not required or expected to repeat these statements regarding every event, as it is known to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of countries and attacking any of them, even those that they fight and classify on terrorist lists.

The question is, has Hamas really improved the face of Iran in the region?

Have you praised its policies in Syria, Iraq and others?

The facts say the opposite, and among the clear evidence to that is the opinion of a large segment of Hamas' popular incubator, its cadres, and even some of its leaders.

Al-Khatib states that the jurisprudence of necessity does not apply to the case of Hamas and Iran, neither legally nor politically, and this is what we disagree with, at least in the political and strategic dimension.

What is right for the individual is not easily applied to states, and the Zionist occupation harms all five necessities and more. We have discussed the importance of Iran in this regard and the centrality of external support to the resistance.

Dr. Moataz warns that "the insistence on highlighting Iranian credit" may cause a decline in humanitarian support "because Iran's international image is negative."

In fact, the image of any party is not an essential criterion, not only because some of the other regimes thanked by the resistance are not reputable, but also because the image of the resistance is negative for many on the official international scene.

Al-Khatib believes that "the exceptionality and specificity of the Palestinian cause" means "the secondary of all other issues", which raises a question about the principle of "equal blood."

In fact, the term centrality of the Palestinian cause never meant the insignificance of others or the preference for the blood of its sons, but rather refers to the gathering of all Arabs over it and the fact that it faces an external enemy for all, countries and peoples.

However, many have given up using the term in recent years to avoid this misunderstanding.

Perhaps it is important to avoid evaluating political relations from a purely ethical perspective, especially if it is based on a utopia that does not exist in the political sphere, as well as projecting legal and jurisprudential categories of the individual on states and relations with them.

One of the things that I deplore in the doctor’s article is that he moves from criticizing some discourse related to Iran to rejecting it outright when he says that there is no difference between thanking Iran and giving the title “Martyr of Jerusalem” to Major General Qassem Soleimani, and then reaching rejecting the idea of ​​receiving support at its origin.

I think that this is not in line with the moral as well as the political analogy on which the article is based.

Finally, the doctor himself admits that the article only asked questions and thought about the issue and did not provide solutions to this controversy or problem, and I think that this is a major deficiency.

What is required today is to establish an argument against Hamas and others from those who believe that Iran’s support is not necessary or harmful, otherwise if there are no other solutions and options, this reinforces the narrative of compulsion that we detailed above.

Conclusion

Hamas has repeatedly proven that its support from Iran and other countries is limited to confrontation with the occupation, and that it has not made significant concessions in terms of general trends, policies and decisions, even if it erred or exceeded in some speeches and statements.

And because she is neither infallible nor immune to criticism, censure and criticism of her is right and even obligatory, but on the basis of caution and advice, not treachery and distortion.

Just as she is required to be more careful and considerate and to rationalize her discourse, her fans should take into account her privacy and difficult circumstances, especially in light of the fragmentation of the Islamic world and the great complexities in the region that cause contradictions for the various parties against their will.

Perhaps it is important to avoid evaluating political relations from a purely ethical perspective, especially if it is based on a utopia that does not exist in the political sphere, as well as projecting legal and jurisprudential categories of the individual on states and relations with them.