Paradoxes of Politics Between the Theory of Right and the Theory of Justice   Captain Mohamed Hassan Al-Tahir

Date: February 12, 2026

A paradox is the coexistence of two contradictory matters within one context, where each seems correct from a certain perspective, yet conflicts with the other when viewed from another angle.

In politics, paradoxes expose the fragility of unilateral logic and highlight how “right” and “justice” may diverge in practice despite their unity in principle.

The Hamas–Israel Model:

The conflict between Hamas and Israel represents a vivid example of political paradox. Each side sees itself as possessing the “right,” while the other is viewed as the aggressor.

This alternation between perpetrator and victim reflects how politics is not governed solely by the logic of right, but also by the logic of power and imposed realities.

Theory of Mindset or Repeated Action:

According to this theory, repeated actions generate new neural patterns in the brain.

In politics, repeated behavior engrains a certain mindset among peoples and leaders. For example:

– Repeated confrontations between the two sides have entrenched the mentality of conflict as part of identity.

This new neural pattern makes the conflict a “natural” state that is difficult to break, even when opportunities for peace arise.

Role Shifts Through Repetition Between Perpetrator and Victim:

– At one moment, Israel is seen as the “perpetrator” due to occupation and power policies.

– At another, Israel is presented as the “victim” of Hamas attacks.

This exchange of roles reflects the greater paradox: no side remains fixed as victim or aggressor. Roles shift with time and context, requiring us to interrogate the relative concepts of right and justice through the legal maxim:

“Everyone can do justice, but it’s difficult to do right.”

Theory of Right:

– Focuses on historical, religious, or legal legitimacy. Each side relies on texts or events to justify its claim.

Theory of Justice:

– Seeks balance between the permanent and the changing across eras.

Justice is not only in texts, but in practical application that safeguards human dignity and rights between permanence and change, where:

– The permanent is universal human principles such as freedom and dignity.

– The changing is practical policies that evolve with time and circumstances.

In Israel’s case, the government of “de facto authority” represents the changing element, imposing daily policies that may conflict with the permanent principles of justice. This raises the question of the morality of justice theory as a lower level in the absence of the theory of right.

Conclusion:

The political paradox between right and justice reveals that politics is not merely texts or slogans, but a web of shifting roles and mindsets shaped by repetition.

The Hamas–Israel model shows that:

– Right alone is not enough.

– Justice requires transcending the logic of power and de facto authority toward a broader human vision.