Colonial sovereignty manufactures its own morality through self-declaration, bypassing the is-ought gap

Evidence

Sovereignty does not only decide the fate of the natives; it also constitutes morality itself. If I say I am a moral agent, then I am a moral agent, even if I am a diabolical monster. Jabotinsky powerfully instructs us in the art of argument that disproves the impossibility of deriving the Ought from the Is: “Either Zionism is moral and just, or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists.” And since “we have settled that question,” the answer to the question is “in the affirmative. We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done.” This is the morality of colonialism, our morality, and it is so not only because “there is no other morality” but also because we said so. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 392

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The argument that sovereignty constitutes morality itself, cutting through the is-ought gap by sheer assertion, is a dense, paradigm-level claim that resists summary.
• XREF: Connects to the moral-panic literature (sovereign redefinition of norms) and to postcolonial critiques where the colonizer’s declaration carries constitutive force. — connects to: Platform mission statements echo colonial law’s benevolent attitude toward the subjugated — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 338