Egyptian columnist and al-Ahram editor Ibrahim Nafie expounded his view of the difference between Right and Left in Israeli politics in this past week’s edition of al-Ahram Weekly.
The Israeli Right, he wrote, is in search of “regional hegemony”, while the Left is interested in “using economic cooperation to change the face of the region....” The Left’s concept, Nafie explained, was borne of “the belief that there are limits to what Israel can accomplish through military means which, in all events, are proving highly costly.” As an exponent of this view, Shimon Peres and his book The New Middle East is explicitly cited in the al-Ahram column. In that book, according to Nafie, Peres “argues that Israel can best realize its fundamental interests by ending its isolation, dismantling the Arab boycott and engaging in cooperative enterprises that would reshape the region.”
Nafie continued, “Our problem with Israel, at present, resides in the fact that the first camp - the Zionist right - is in power in Israel. This is the camp that insists on imposing a settlement on the Arabs by force of arms, on reinforcing Israel's isolation and on treating the Arab world as an open frontier for the realization of the ultimate objective of regional hegemony.”
As it does this, the al-Ahram editor wrote, the “Israeli right continues to hold Israel is a modern, democratic nation trying to survive in a hostile environment, and that, therefore, its security and prosperity are contingent upon its ability to fortify itself against the threats this environment poses.”
On the economic front, the Israeli right “further maintains that Israel has the capacity to best utilize the resources and energies of the region to foster progress and development,” the columnist explained. “Nevertheless, while Israel must steer this endeavor, it must guard itself against assimilation into this environment, since that would herald the end of the Zionist project.”
Despite the fact that the project was originally a proposal of the Israeli Left, Nafie declares that the thinking of the Israeli Right “is most tangibly manifested in the separating wall, currently under construction in the West Bank.”
The “problem” of the Israeli Right is “aggravated”, according to Nafie, by the fact that “there is a strong convergence in ideological outlook between this camp and influential circles in the current US administration.”
Thus, the al-Ahram Weekly column concludes, “Clearly, in light of the foregoing, the problem with Israel is far too complex to be reduced to the mechanics of the Road Map. While we have no bones to pick with the foundations of that process, such a narrow focus does not help identify the root causes behind the current dilemma.”
The Israeli Right, he wrote, is in search of “regional hegemony”, while the Left is interested in “using economic cooperation to change the face of the region....” The Left’s concept, Nafie explained, was borne of “the belief that there are limits to what Israel can accomplish through military means which, in all events, are proving highly costly.” As an exponent of this view, Shimon Peres and his book The New Middle East is explicitly cited in the al-Ahram column. In that book, according to Nafie, Peres “argues that Israel can best realize its fundamental interests by ending its isolation, dismantling the Arab boycott and engaging in cooperative enterprises that would reshape the region.”
Nafie continued, “Our problem with Israel, at present, resides in the fact that the first camp - the Zionist right - is in power in Israel. This is the camp that insists on imposing a settlement on the Arabs by force of arms, on reinforcing Israel's isolation and on treating the Arab world as an open frontier for the realization of the ultimate objective of regional hegemony.”
As it does this, the al-Ahram editor wrote, the “Israeli right continues to hold Israel is a modern, democratic nation trying to survive in a hostile environment, and that, therefore, its security and prosperity are contingent upon its ability to fortify itself against the threats this environment poses.”
On the economic front, the Israeli right “further maintains that Israel has the capacity to best utilize the resources and energies of the region to foster progress and development,” the columnist explained. “Nevertheless, while Israel must steer this endeavor, it must guard itself against assimilation into this environment, since that would herald the end of the Zionist project.”
Despite the fact that the project was originally a proposal of the Israeli Left, Nafie declares that the thinking of the Israeli Right “is most tangibly manifested in the separating wall, currently under construction in the West Bank.”
The “problem” of the Israeli Right is “aggravated”, according to Nafie, by the fact that “there is a strong convergence in ideological outlook between this camp and influential circles in the current US administration.”
Thus, the al-Ahram Weekly column concludes, “Clearly, in light of the foregoing, the problem with Israel is far too complex to be reduced to the mechanics of the Road Map. While we have no bones to pick with the foundations of that process, such a narrow focus does not help identify the root causes behind the current dilemma.”