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.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.
“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.”
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.
It appears that the title of my last post was wistfully inaccurate. I've only just seen this and spoken to Clarabelle (a Zamalek resident), so I'm perhaps not best placed to comment at the moment, except to say that this has shocked me almost to the point of disbelief. Here are some pictures from Khaled Zohny's Facebook page (apologies in advance for any copyright infringement):
You could hear the party going on in Boursa from streets away. Hundreds upon hundreds of people in eager anticipation of Egypt's return to the international football elite and the chance to see their side in action against the world's best. An hour before the match, there wasn't a spare seat to be found and the noise was simply deafening - typical football songs through mixed with chants with a curiously religious overtone. I admire the Egyptian passion for football, it's a wonderful feeling to be in amongst the dancing, music, flag waving. It wasn't just young men either, there were women, scarved and unscarved, of all ages present, and a real feeling of community that I haven't experienced in a long time.
After all that singing, drumming and dancing, the match itself was something of a let down. Algeria played a hard game and scored a great goal, but their time wasting antics coupled with some inept refereeing meant the match wasn't the spectacle it should have been. Egypt spurned chance after chance whilst Algeria scraped their one shot and one goal. The crowd's cheers of "Ya rab!" (Oh Lord!) for Egypt's set plays turned from expectant, to hopeful, to desperate, and the fans seemed to have given up hope by the time the fourth official signalled an astonishingly short 4 minutes of time to be added on. Alas, it wasn't to be, and now Egypt has to wait another 4 years for a shot at World Cup qualification.
Football aside, it's been a busy week since getting back from Karachi, I feel like I've not had five spare minutes as I try and catch up with Meedan, teaching, and copy editing. In amongst all this I'm trying to prepare applications for universities and funding in the UK, a process which takes more time than you could ever imagine. The most frustrating thing will be the wait after I send the applications, as I may not know where I'm going to be next year until months after the deadlines - all I can do is pray and sit tight. It's quite astonishing to think I've already been back here for over 5 months and have only four short weeks before I go home for Christmas, something I'm looking forward to greatly.
More tomorrow, I hope. I have a rather wonderful book and some nice music I want to tell you about.
Back in Cairo after a great time in Karachi, and the football fever that was ubiquitous on my leaving has only intensified on my return. Sunday night witnessed a huge game here in Cairo, one that I sadly missed, with Egypt scraping the 2-0 win they needed against Algeria, forcing a play-off in a neutral venue. That game is tonight, and right now the tension and excitement here are tangible.
School has been cancelled tonight, happily meaning I can watch THE game, and I have a spot booked at a place I reckon will make a good venue. Cars are honking their horns, the 'ahwas were filling up at 4pm (are they ever empty) and Egypt flags are everywhere; cars, balconies, shops, faces. If Egypt win today, this place will go nuts - I can't wait!
Photos and match experiences to follow! Yallah Masr!
This morning as I browsed through the feed of the people I follow on Twitter, I was saddened to stumble across this: @monaeltahawy "got my 1st death threat. Someone angry at my Wash Post oped on Yale + Danish cartoons. His email has been passed onto the law enforcement."
Mona is a well known and respected writer and speaker on Arab and Muslim issues whose articles are published in English and Arabic all over the world. I particularly enjoy her direct and uncompromising arguments, especially on women's issues - whether you agree with her opinion or not it's refreshing to hear such refreshingly honest criticism.
The subject of her latest contribution, published in the Washington Post, was the debacle at Yale University Press after they decided that a book written about the controversy following the publication of those Danish cartoons in 2005 should, in fact, not contain the offending images. It is a well argued, nuanced piece that recognises the offensive nature of the images, but questions:
1) The timing of the anger across the Muslim world: "What occurred across many Muslim-majority countries in 2006 was a clear exercise in manufacturing outrage. Consider:
Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons in September 2005. The widespread protests in majority-Muslim countries that eventually left more than 200 dead did not start until about four months later. Indeed, when an Egyptian newspaper reprinted one cartoon in October 2005 to show readers how a Danish newspaper was portraying the prophet, no backlash was heard in Cairo or elsewhere."
2) The double standard of the outrage: "The cowardice shown by Yale Press recognizes none of the nuance that filled my conversations in Copenhagen nor discussions I had with Muslims in Qatar and Egypt during the controversy. Many told me they were dismayed at the double standards that stoked rage at these Danish cartoons yet did not question silence at anti-Semitic and racist cartoons in the region’s media."
and, principally:
3) The fact that Yale removing the images from a book highlighting them as Islamophobic and trying to promote serious academic discourse on the matter proves "what Flemming Rose said was his original intent in commissioning the cartoons — that artists were self-censoring out of fear of Muslim radicals?
Yale has sided with the various Muslim dictators and radical groups that used the cartoons to “prove” who could best “defend” Muhammad against the Danes and, by extension, burnish their Islamic credentials. Those same dictators and radicals who complained of the offence to the prophet’s memory were blind to the greater offense they committed in their disregard for human life. (Indeed, some of those protesters even held banners that said, “Behead those who offend the prophet.”)"
Regardless of whether you agree with her assessment, and I do, for Eltahawy to receive a death threat over the piece is nothing short of obscene. To make matters worse, Masrawy - a site I usually enjoy for its timely content on Egyptian affairs - published an article selectively translating sections of the original piece that seems only to serve as provocation for their readers to fill the comments section with yet more ugly threats (the only comment I read defending Eltahawy seems to have mysteriously disappeared).
Through-mixed with the poison of such threats, there is an odd irony, as the author herself recognises: @monaeltahawy "Someone angry at stereotyping of Muslims for being violent threatens to kill me = what? During Ramadan no less. Wow."
No further comment.
Actually two further comments, if anyone else wants to chip in I'll post your comments on this entry as and when!
Posts
Hello Tom,
Interesting post. I do agree with the writer's criticism of the timing of the violent protests which saw the loss of so much human life. The irony in defending a man accused of violence, through violent means is beyond ridiculous. It is all down pretty much to the fact that we sway with the media, the more media coverage, the more the 'dominant' method of 'protest' becomes the only way of showing 'love' and 'support' - yes, it is wrong.
However, I do not think that Yale's decision to not print the cartoons themselves in the book has made them side with the violent extremists and other self-righteous and murderous groups. I think you have to see their decision to not print seperately from the other incidents. To me, it is not "cowardice" but it is a consideration and respect for man held in great esteem and regard by a large and substantial population of this planet, who DO find those cartoons offensive. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Why can't their decision be seen as an independent one? It is not to be compared with the anti-semitic cartoons in the middle east- which yes ARE wrong.. But since when are other people's wrongs to be a reason to adjust our own principles?
Just my thoughts.
Hey Fadhila,
Here's a piece from the NYT discussing the decision, interesting reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=1
And here's Yale UP's statement:
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/KlausenStatement.asp
If the decision were taken to avoid offence, I think there could be a better case made (although I'd still disagree) but the statement seems to suggest that the decision was taken to avoid violent reprisals, with the caveat that if the reader wanted to view the offending cartoons (although perhaps not the other images of the prophet originally included eg. the Ottoman print) they could do so easily on the internet.
I understand that the cartoons were and are deeply offensive, and certainly a stupid thing to publish in the first place. But in the context of a rigorous academic discussion of the cartoons and with the author's express opinion that the images are Islamophobic I think their inclusion in the book is important, and I don't see how a repeat of the 2006 events is likely. As Reza Aslan notes in the NYT piece "“The controversy has died out now, anyone who wants to see them can see them,” he said of the cartoons, noting that he has written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction."
I'm not sure I fully agree that Yale has sided with violent extremists either, I know they're trying to tread carefully - rightly so - but I think they came up with the wrong conclusion, and that the decision was taken far more out of cowardice than out of respect.