Tom in Egypt // توم في مصر

Just got home and found a rather annoying story via my Google Reader (I know it's 11:14 pm, I was only chatting this weekend with Son of a Duck about how compulsive Google Reader can become.)

Here's the headline: Egypt journalist’s 25 Israel visits stir debate 

In most countries of the world, journalists stick together to battle against governments for freedom of movement and freedom of expression. In Egypt, not the case. Here, it appears, the Journalists' Syndicate blackballs anyone who tries to provide decent coverage on Israel - one of the most frequently discussed topics in the Egyptian press.

Now it appears that deeply experienced journalist and deputy editor-in-chief of October magazine (one of the few state-run mags worth reading), Hussein Serag, has fallen into the same trap as poor Hala Mustafa before him. In trying to write informed and honest pieces about Israel, he - heaven forbid - actually visited the country and - even worse - spoke to Israelis. This came out in a TV interview (Serag never tried to hide it) and he has now faced a disciplinary hearing and been banned from writing for three months on the now infamous charge of encouraging "normalization".

Now, as a bit of basic background (emphasis on basic), Egypt officially recognized the state of Israel and has been at peace with its westerly neighbour since the 1978 Camp David accords and the subsequent 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. This has, however, not meant "cultural normalization" - which is where this trouble over Mustafa and Serag comes in. The Journalists's Syndicate, along with various other institutions including the Ministry of Culture (remember Farouk Hosni's failed bid to become director-general of UNESCO?) refuses to have "normal" relations with Israel - for no doubt noble reasons.

The problem arrives when it comes to enforcing this "normalization" policy. In the furore that surrounded Mustafa's disciplinary action, the largest state-run media outfit Al Ahram instigated a boycott of Israel. According to Israeli daily Haaretz, this means:

The boycott, approved by a majority of nine board members over six following a heated debate, includes a ban on meeting with and interviewing Israelis, and a ban on participation in events (seminars, conferences, lectures) in which Israelis are taking part. According to the report, the board of directors also banned Israelis from entering the building housing the Al-Ahram offices. The ban includes Israeli diplomats stationed in Egypt.

In this vein, Serag's repeated travel to Israel (25 visits no less) is strictly prohibited, hence the ban. This begs the somewhat obvious question: How is a journalist with any integrity supposed to decently and accurately cover the hugely important issues which surround Israel, Palestine and relations between the three without meeting with or interviewing Israelis or visiting Israel? Bizarre. Ridiculous.

The total madness of the situation over "normalization" becomes painfully clear in the Al Arabiyya article:

Serag criticized what he called the manipulative stance of the Ministry of Culture when it authorized the translation of Israeli work but through an intermediate language like English and French and not directly from Hebrew.

“Translation already makes the work lose a lot of its authenticity when it is translated from the native language, let alone when there is a third language in the middle.” 

 The whole situation is just nonsense and only serves to perpetuate ignorance and inaccurate information. And for what? Does Israel suffer as a result of the lack of "normalization"? Of course not. As Serag points out, Israeli intellectuals and writers are invited each year to the Cairo International Book Fair, and Daniel Barenboim only last year conducted in Cairo Opera House. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Mercifully, Serag is entirely unrepentant and witheringly critical of the Journalists' Syndicate (as it appears in this piece at least):

“The (journalist) union has become a safe haven for those who want to serve their personal agendas at the expense of their profession,” he told Al Arabiya. “The union should defend journalists’ freedom of movement and expression not the other way round.” 

Spot on.

NOTE: For excellent counter arguments to the Hala Mustafa controversy, read The Traveller Within's post.

When time is short (and often when it is not), writing is the first thing to fall off the bandwagon. This week has been fraught with deadlines and extra Meedan shifts to catch up for my "time off" with Lucy, and hence my silence on the ElBaradei return. Happily there are many other, much better qualified bloggers doing some truly sterling work.

Via The Arabist (who himself posted one of the best analyses of ElBaradei's campaign in Egypt I've read) I found this excellent post and accompanying cartoon from blogger Baheyya, of whom I used to be a regular reader until posts dried up some time ago. Here's her delightfully concise summation of the political situation post ElBaradei's return (and the marvellous cartoon included):

At this point, it’s hard to see how ElBaradei can even run in the elections, much less have a real chance at winning. But I think he’s doing more than launching a symbolic campaign. He’s raising the costs of electoral engineering for the Mubarak regime, making 2010 and 2011 the toughest polls yet in Mubarak’s tenure. What’s more, ElBaradei’s entry comes at a time when the regime is at its weakest. Mubarak is fast fading, his son is flailing, the bureaucracy is riven with unbelievable corruption and civil servant protests, and all social classes are literally fed up and can’t stand the Mubaraks anymore. None of this means that ElBaradei is going to displace the system, but it does mean that the regime will have to work harder than it ever has to weather the electoral cycle.

ElBaradei himself appears quite outspoken in a piece published today in Egyptian independent daily Al-Shorouk (my rag of choice here - I think the best of a bad bunch), warning the government that change is "inevitable" and if it doesn't come via peaceful means it will come via perhaps less savoury methods.

Watching ElBaradei''s interview with talk show host Mona El-Shazli (struggling to find an appropriate UK comparison - somewhere between Jonathan Ross and Parky, but a lady) I was struck by his sincerity - a result, perhaps, of not being a career politician. I don't think he particularly wants to be president, but he's willing to do it (or at least threaten to) in order to bring about change for his country.

It's a refreshing change to hear someone, particularly someone involving himself in politics, say "it's not about me" (quote) and feel like he means it.