Opinion | Dialogue without illusion: Rethinking engagement with Israel

“We are, in one way or another, bound to engage with others, across borders, cultures, and political divides. Yet the paradox of our time is that such engagement has become more ethically complex than ever. Dialogue is no longer a self-evident virtue; it is a contested space shaped by questions of legitimacy, power, and meaning. In recent years, interaction across divides has become routine. In international conferences, academic settings, and cultural initiatives, encounters between politically distant actors are now expected. But the real question is no longer whether we meet; it is what that meeting means. In the Egyptian case, this question becomes particularly sensitive when it involves engagement with Israel, where the political intersects with the historical, and the practical with the moral. Is dialogue simply human communication? Or is it implicitly read as acceptance of the status quo? The problem lies not in the encounter itself, but in the framework through which it is understood. A casual exchange does not resolve structural conflict, nor does it produce reconciliation. Confusing human interaction with political meaning is what creates the ambiguity. Within this tension, three common illusions emerge. The first is the illusion of “inevitable normalisation” in relation to Israel, the belief that engagement is only a matter of time, that history moves in one direction, and that resistance is futile. This is not realism, but intellectual surrender disguised as pragmatism. It assumes, simplistically, that power has been decisively settled, not only materially, but civilizationally. The second is the illusion of total rejection: dismissing all forms of engagement, even academic or human, as unacceptable. While morally clear, this position often leads to intellectual isolation. It neither produces understanding nor builds policy; instead, it reduces reality to an unworkable binary: total acceptance or total refusal. The third, and perhaps most dangerous, is the illusion of “neutral dialogue”: the belief that engagement can occur outside context, as if power does not matter and reality does not impose itself, even in a case as complex as the relationship with Israel. This illusion empties dialogue of its substance. There is no dialogue without context, and no interaction without a balance of power. What is needed, then, is to redefine dialogue, not as a moral reflex, but as a strategic tool. Dialogue produces narratives, narratives generate legitimacy, and legitimacy reshapes power. This is, in essence, the governance of meaning. From this perspective, the question is not whether to engage, but how. I think that meaningful engagement must rest on three conditions. First, parity: there is no dialogue from a position of symbolic weakness. One must enter with the capacity to articulate one’s own narrative, not merely respond to others. Second, clarity: no grey zones. Informal or off-the-record interactions may seem convenient, but they often create more confusion than understanding. Third, conditionality: no engagement without expectations. Dialogue that demands nothing and is tied to no form of change, even gradual, is not dialogue; it is implicit acceptance. These conditions are not easy to meet, particularly in unstable political environments where trust is limited. Without them, dialogue becomes either an empty gesture or a strategic liability. A more uncomfortable truth remains: part of the problem lies not only with the “other,” but with us. Too often, we enter these spaces, including engagement with Israel, without the capacity to produce strong knowledge, coherent narratives, or convincing alternatives. As a result, we operate within frameworks defined by others. This reveals the deeper nature of the conflict: it is not only about territory or politics, but about who defines reality itself. Who shapes interpretation? Whose narrative prevails? In this context, withdrawal is not a solution. Nor is unconditional engagement a rational choice. Both, in different ways, leave the field of meaning to others. In the Egyptian-Israeli context, this balance is particularly difficult, but all the more necessary. The alternative is harder, but essential: conscious engagement. Engagement that understands power without surrendering to it, and opens to interaction without abandoning its conditions. Dialogue is not an end in itself. It is a tool, one that can be used for understanding or for distortion, depending on how it is deployed. The problem is not dialogue itself, but those who enter it without conditions. Between naïve engagement and absolute rejection lies a narrow but decisive space, one that requires discipline rather than impulse, and a cool mind rather than inflamed emotion. In a divided world, and perhaps most clearly in engagement with Israel, this may be the only form of dialogue worth pursuing. Dr Ramy Galal is a governance and institutional reform specialist focusing on state capacity, accountability, and the design of effective public institutions. His work examines how institutional arrangements shape policy outcomes and government performance, particularly in emerging and middle-income contexts. He also engages with the concept of governance of meaning as an analytical lens for understanding how authority, narratives, and interpretation influence policy environments. He is an Assistant Professor and a former Senator, bringing a combination of academic expertise and hands-on experience across both legislative and executive domains. He previously served as an advisor and official spokesperson for Egypt’s Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, with direct involvement in policy design, government decision-making, and implementation processes at the center of government. He holds a PhD from Alexandria University, a master’s degree from the University of East London, and a diploma in public administration from the University of Chile. The post Opinion | Dialogue without illusion: Rethinking engagement with Israel first appeared on Dailynewsegypt .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of Daily News Egypt. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on www.dailynewsegypt.com.