Galal Nassar examines the often pernicious role of the media in any process of normalisation Hala Mustafa's reception of the Israeli ambassador to Egypt in her office at the Al-Ahram building fanned the ongoing controversy over normalisation of cultural and media relations with Israel which, let us not forget, continues to occupy large tracts of Arab land, to enforce an inhumane blockade on millions of Palestinians, and to subject millions of others to various forms of abuse and degradation. Mustafa is the editor-in-chief of Al-Dimoqratiya, a periodical published by Al-Ahram. Her meeting with the Israeli ambassador is being investigated by the Press Syndicate as a possible violation of the syndicate's General Assembly ruling, adopted in 1979, prohibiting all forms of media normalisation with Israel until all occupied Arab territories are freed. It should be noted here that the boycott of the Zionist occupation by no means reflects a stance towards the Jewish religion or its adherents. Nor is it a permanent position towards the Israeli state, but rather one that will end as soon as the last Israeli soldier withdraws from occupied Arab territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights and Lebanon. Given the controversy the visit aroused, this seems an appropriate occasion to clarify for Al-Ahram Weekly 's readers the concept of normalisation from the perspective of the majority of Egyptian and, perhaps, Arab journalists and intellectuals. Generally speaking, the notion of normalisation arises against two virtually antithetical backdrops. One is where previously existing normal relations had broken down due to antagonism but where new circumstances now compel the restoration of normal, peaceful relations. The second is where normal relations did not exist in the past but, now, by force of de facto realities or other circumstances, they are deemed desirable or else are thrust upon the public against its wishes. We might go further and take the first situation as the rule (whereby, for example, an Arab or Muslim entity would restore normal relations with another Arab or Muslim political entity with which relations had soured) and the second situation as the exception. The exception becomes all the more flagrant when it entails normalisation with an entity with a political system built on ethnic supremacist or Zionist or other such exclusivist ideologies and which is inherently inclined to various forms of persecution and tyranny against the "other". Now, while an individual may "normalise" his or her relations with a political system and even, in extreme cases, regard it as a favourable alternative to his or her own, such a choice is virtually inconceivable for an organised group bound by a set of common values and a cultural/ ideological frame of reference opposed to those of the political system with which normalisation is expected. This is the attitude of the Press Syndicate, and other such cultural and media associations in Egypt, towards institutions and their representatives in Israel. Whereas governments, regardless of their systems of rule and ideological orientations, may find it necessary to normalise relations with an enemy in order to avert a greater harm, or in order to gain a potential advantage, it is inappropriate to compel their people to behave likewise or to thrust this choice and its attendant moral compromises upon a society's value systems. This is not only because the decision is dictated from the top but also because the popularity of the decision would be so low as to be non-existent to all practical purposes. My focus here is not on the more familiar types of normalisation (political, diplomatic, commercial and economic) but on the media dimension of the process, which is central to the promotion and consolidation of normalisation with Israel. Advocates of this process are not lacking in the Arab media or in cultural forums, nor are they lacking in rationalisations. As long as our political leaders have "normalised" relations with Israel, having officially recognised it, exchanged consulates and embassies, established direct communication and commercial links, sitting together with Israelis in various international organisations and forums, hosting visiting Israelis, as individuals and in groups, it is our duty to follow suit, they argue. We should make space in our newspapers and other media so that their opinion writers can present their opinions for us to consider without prejudice, and we should meet and exchange views with them in various frameworks. They add that as long as our intellectuals (or at least some of them) associate with their intellectuals in seminars and other such forums, there can be no shame in our media hosting their media elites in our satellite television studios or the columns of our newspapers and magazines. What's wrong with media people doing exactly what their political officials and their "enlightened" compatriots are doing, they ask. They go on to maintain that as long as Israel has become an incontrovertible fact, a part of the region in a state of coexistence with our authorities, to ignore it, or to ignore, at least, Israelis with good intentions, solves nothing and only contributes to complicating the problem and aggravating tensions between the two sides. Normalisation advocates -- for the most part journalists and political research centre members -- do not stop at words; they sometimes put these into practice. Going to Israel, under the normalisation rubric, is no longer something to be ashamed of, they say, and sharing television spots with Israeli counterparts (mostly on Western television programmes) is no longer a violation of principle. And if such forums attract pro-Zionist pens (of the Thomas Friedman stripe, for example), then this is so much the better. As a consequence, the presence of this or that Israeli figure on some Arab satellite station has become as "normal" (in the pro-normalisation media) as the presence of a personality from this or that Arab country. So normal, in fact, that the studio seating plan ensures that the Israeli or pro-Zionist guest is placed between two Arab or Muslim ones. Though this phenomenon had its precursors in the written press and essentially Western channels of communication, it has become glaringly widespread with the explosion of the satellite television networks in the Arab world. Very few media organisations have held out against the tide, and those that have tend to be backed by a political or diplomatic climate resistant to pressures to submit to the fad. One can, by extension, assume that journalistic satellite networks and institutions that have opted for a pro- normalisation editorial policy acted not independently but rather followed the lead of pro-normalisation officials who could not risk openly declaring this inclination yet who were keen to nudge their national media along a path that they dared not tread yet themselves. Thus, most if not all satellite stations have not only adopted a pro-normalisation ideology, they have also lent themselves as a tool for legitimising it by promoting the process and its general acceptance on the grounds that it is inevitable. Thus, Arab media (satellite networks, in particular) emerge not so much as the advocates of normalisation but as its midwife. It is for this reason that opponents to normalisation with an unjust and tyrannical political entity should be all the more adamant when it comes to the media and cultural dimensions of normalisation, for these areas are the last strongholds in the struggle against Israel and Zionism. This is not solely because normalisation under the current circumstances is a form of surrender but also because the media is the written and pictorial expression of a battle in which, if we are not vigilant, Israel could undermine and weaken our ideological and moral defences. At this phase in the struggle, Arab journalists and other media professionals must continue to resist the pressures, or ostensible appeal of normalisation, and their means towards this end is to wield their words and images in a manner that best counters Israeli propaganda and exposes the fascist crimes perpetrated by Israel's political and military leaders. At the same time, we must draw a clear line between Judaism and Jewish identity, on the one hand, and Zionism and Zionists, on the other, stressing that our hostility to the latter does not extend to the former. After all, there is no reason why we should accept the Israeli definition of what constitutes anti- Semitism, since we too are of Semitic origin. Equally important, we must affirm that it is not our treatment of our national causes and Zionist policies and ideas that is racist but rather that our approach to such issues proceeds from a moral standpoint that condemns the conditions in which people in the occupied territories must live as a consequence of Israel's racist policies, persistent violations of international conventions and human rights abuses. To media professionals who advocate the defence of human rights in the face of Israel's continued injustices normalisation cannot be part of their vocabulary. Proponents of normalisation in the media often cite the adage "know thy enemy" to justify their position. Opponents can easily turn this adage on its head and say we already know our enemy very well, not just through his words but by his deeds. Is this not the enemy that demolishes people's homes and blockades the supplies necessary for life from millions of people? Pro-normalisation advocates must see this as clearly as we do. Undoubtedly they see it through different eyes.
