It has only been weeks since U.S. President Donald Trump began his new term, yet he has already made a record number of controversial statements. Perhaps the most significant of these, from our perspective, concerns the future of the Gaza Strip. Trump reduces Gaza to a mere real estate deal—one that primarily aims to displace its inhabitants and develop real estate projects and investments to transform the strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East." He added that he is in no hurry to achieve this and that the United States will take control of the strip from "Israel" after the fighting ends, at which point the implementation of this deal will begin. He also claimed that regional powers opposing the displacement would eventually agree.
On another front, in December 2023, South Africa filed a lawsuit against "Israel" at the International Court of Justice, accusing it of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Days after assuming office, Trump signed an executive order cutting financial aid to South Africa in response to this lawsuit, expressing his displeasure over South Africa’s legal pursuit of "Israel" at the ICJ.
Why, then, does Trump act in this manner? And why does South Africa defend Gaza despite having no geographical or historical ties to it?
The answer to these questions leads us to the dilemma of the relationship between politics and values, or the place of morality in state policies. Two competing worldviews exist today, though their roots run deep in history. The first sees politics as inseparably tied to values, where politics follows what ought to be, based on an ethical model that defines right and wrong in an observable and comprehensible way.
For instance, the Greek philosopher Plato believed that politics should reflect absolute values such as goodness, justice, and wisdom, while Aristotle saw it as a means of managing society and achieving the common good by balancing values with reality.
This perspective aligns with what Muslim scholars later emphasized—that politics in Islam is fundamentally based on values. Justice, consultation (shura), trustworthiness, and the protection of people's rights are the foundations of good governance. The ideal Islamic rule is one that balances power with moral principles to ensure the well-being of society, and the success of politics is measured by the rulers' commitment to Islamic values, chief among them justice and the pursuit of both worldly and eternal good.
In contrast, there is a second perspective, whose most famous proponent is Machiavelli. This view downplays the role of values in favor of political reality, where practical interests dictate actions, and the notion of what "ought to be" fades away. Consequently, the meanings of right and wrong shift. The pragmatic, realist view of politics is based on the separation of values from governance, or even the opportunistic use of values when expedient. In this view, successful governance and sound politics do not necessarily depend on virtue but rather on the ability to wield power and deception when needed. A ruler is not bound by moral obligations; rather, he must do whatever is necessary to maintain authority and ensure state stability, even if it means employing unethical means.
Here, politics is not a reflection of values, nor a tool for achieving the common good or just governance, but rather an ongoing struggle for survival in an amoral world. Modern political systems have been built upon the tenets of this model, where political realism, guided by the logic of power and the interests of the strongest, prevails. This has manifested starkly in the brutal colonial policies imposed on weaker nations.
Trump’s approach to governance embodies the modern face of this pragmatic model. He views the world through the lens of interest and profit, operates by a materialistic calculus of gains and losses, and always seeks the most lucrative deals. Tangible benefits such as wealth, property, and influence take precedence over non-material concerns or humanitarian considerations.
He firmly believes in exploiting opportunities whenever they arise, particularly in times of crisis. His negotiation strategy relies on "aggressive bargaining," meaning that he begins negotiations from a position of power, refuses to compromise, and imposes harsh conditions to force the other party into a defensive stance. He constantly threatens with force and tramples over conventions without hesitation.
On the other hand, South Africa represents one of the historically oppressed nations that has suffered under a version of Trump’s political model in its earlier form—enduring occupation, resource plundering, land theft, and apartheid. Thus, when South Africa filed its lawsuit against "Israel" and subsequently lost financial aid, it was fighting to prevent the world from normalizing this brazen colonial model once again. It was a struggle rooted in the immense sacrifices of its people, who shed their blood to reclaim their dignity and homeland.
In other words, South Africa’s support for Gaza is deeper than mere geographical proximity or shared history in a simple sense. It is a bond forged through shared pain, suffering, and injustice. It is a stance of hope and solidarity, a message to the oppressed: "We, too, were once in your place—do not despair, do not surrender." It is a fight to reclaim values and honor from the grip of a ruthless beast that threatens our collective humanity, for in its eyes, we are nothing more than a deal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
