In its emergency meeting last June 27, the Syndicate of Journalists' board of directors agreed unanimously to refer colleague Hussein Serag, deputy chief editor of October Magazine, to a disciplinary committee. Such a decision was made because Serag violated a decision banning normalization with the Zionist entity. In a TV interview and in a dialogue with Gamal Fahmy and Gamal Abdel Rahim, members of the syndicate, Serag said he visited Israel 25 times and met with the chairman of the Peace Now Movement at the home of the Israeli Adviser in Cairo. On the following day, the syndicate sent a letter to Serag to know the truth. The syndicate asked Serag to respond within three days otherwise he would be referred to a disciplinary committee.
In his reply to the letter, and then in an interview with Rosa El-Youssef magazine, Serag did not deny that he repeatedly visited Israel since 1981. He added that he published the outcome of his meetings with the Israeli officials in the October magazine. However, the syndicate did not comment or reject! To justify violating the syndicate's decision, Serag said the decision did not differentiate between "boycott" and the "professional necessities." He, as a specialist in the Israeli affairs, cannot do his job without traveling to the scene and meeting with the key players. The same applies to the journalists specializing in news on crimes. They cannot do their job without meeting criminals and murderers. Therefore, any journalist specializing in the Israeli affairs cannot do his job without traveling to Israel and meeting with the Israeli officials and diplomats so that the Arab readers could read about what he called "The enemy's image in Egyptian eyes." Serag added that he would meet with the Israelis because he is convinced that he is doing the right thing.
Strangely enough, the syndicate's successive boards of directors since 1985 - the date of issuing a decision banning normalization with Israel – did not notice throughout some 25 years that Serag was violating the decision although he was publishing his interviews with the Israeli officials on the pages of a major weekly! The boards of directors did also notice that other journalists specializing in Israeli affairs were doing the same thing, as Serag put it. This means that the syndicate has no mechanism to know whether its members violate the decision banning normalization with Israel or not. It only depends on fabrications. The question now is: What is the reason behind this sudden enthusiasm and fierce campaign that pushed the syndicate to refer Serag to a disciplinary committee on charges of a crime he has been committing for some 25 years? I hope there would not be political or electoral motives or conflicts inside the syndicate, as is usual in most of what is being said on normalization. Serag said five other members of the Syndicate of Journalists attended his meeting with the Israelis at the home of the media advisor of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Therefore, it is clear that Serag and the other journalists violated the syndicate's decision banning the "union or professional or personal" normalization with Israel. Serag and the other journalists have the right to call for limiting the decision on banning the "union" normalization only. They also have the right to call for excepting the specialized in the Israeli affairs from this decision. They should submit that proposal to the syndicate's general assembly, which, in turn, should amend its decision if it was convinced. However, they do not have the right to violate the syndicate's decision just because they think it violates the professional principles.
It is the right of the syndicate's board of directors to draw the attention of Serag for violating the decision. It also has the right to ask Serag to apologize for violating the decision. However, it does not have the right to refer him to a disciplinary committee, not only because the text of the decision did provide for penalties against whoever violates it, but also because the syndicate's law does not include any provision on referring journalists to disciplinary committees because they violated the general assembly's decisions. Article 75 provides that a journalist shall be referred to a disciplinary committee if he violates the syndicate's law or regulation or the code of ethics, or if he neglects his duty or threatens the syndicate's dignity. The same applies to the laws of all professional unions, which refer their members to disciplinary committees if they made professional mistakes, and not due to their political opinions or stances. If Serag and the other journalists were referred to a disciplinary committee, they might be struck off. Therefore, they would resort to the Administrative Judiciary Court, which would, of course, cancel the syndicate's decision because Egypt cancelled the laws on boycotting Israel since 1979, when it signed agreements to normalize relations with Israel. This has actually happened with other members of other unions!
I hope the Syndicate of Journalists would refer this file to jurists before taking an action that may end with a court ruling canceling the syndicate's decision banning normalization with Israel.
