A television interview conducted by Egyptian media figure Emad El-Din Adeeb with Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid on Sky News Arabia has reignited a long-standing professional debate about the boundaries of Egyptian journalists’ professional relationship with Israeli sources.
The interview has polarized opinions between those defending a journalist’s right to engage with any source without exception, and those insisting on a total boycott of Israeli sources, viewing any interaction as cultural and media normalization with Israel.
The controversy is further complicated by the political context of Lapid’s visit. His meetings in the United Arab Emirates with the country’s president and foreign minister drew public criticism.
Sky News Arabia, the platform for the interview, operates as a joint venture between the UK-based Sky Group and the UAE-based International Media Investments (IMI) corporation. The latter is controlled by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President of the United Arab Emirates.
On the special, broadcast on Thursday, July 3, Lapid appeared calm and polished, seizing the rare opportunity to present the Israeli narrative to an Arab audience. Adeeb also seemed composed, but critics perceived him as unable to direct the conversation and faulted him for letting numerous inaccuracies by the former Israeli prime minister pass without challenge.
As Israel’s opposition leader, Yair Lapid has become a prominent critic of Netanyahu’s Gaza war strategy, advocating for an immediate end to the conflict and prioritizing captive returns.
The criticism Adeeb faced from both sides didn’t prevent the resparking of a debate dating back to the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. This debate stems from the Journalists Syndicate’s decision in March 1981 to ban normalization with Israel, a ban that remains in effect today as it is renewed at every biennial ordinary General Assembly to elect the head of the syndicate and half of its council members.
Lapid’s lies go unchallenged
The entire interview lasted just 25 minutes and was completely dominated by the guest, with little real intervention from the host, even when Lapid ignored questions or made baseless accusations. Adeeb did not press him for clarification, nor did he offer any corrections.
Adeeb did not request any evidence for Lapid’s accusations that Hamas steals aid and resells it to Gaza residents to fund weapons purchases. Nor did the veteran journalist challenge the “reputation laundering” Lapid engaged in by claiming the Israeli occupation army provides humanitarian aid to those it is fighting.
Adeeb seemed hesitant when mentioning civilian casualties in Gaza, and fell completely silent when Lapid promoted the Israeli narrative of “human shields.” At one point, Lapid said, “I completely agree that you expect us, Israel as a democratic state, to value human life. But people need to understand that Hamas had the ability to end this war two years ago. The only thing they had to do was put down their weapons. We have no issue with Gaza’s civilians. Hamas is Gaza’s worst enemy, and we are fighting their worst enemy.” Adeeb interrupted him, saying, “But what’s happening is that your casualty count…” then stopped mid-sentence and moved to the next question.
He also failed to challenge Lapid on statements about Egypt’s management of the Gaza Strip, just as he wasn’t troubled by Lapid’s assertion that Israel does not occupy the Syrian Golan Heights because, in his words, “Israel has controlled the Golan far longer than the Syrians ever did.” Nor did Adeeb respond when Lapid claimed that Israel’s recent war on Iran proved that “the Middle East was reminded that Israel is the region’s military superpower and capable of doing what no one else can.”
Between two refusals
The interview brought back into public focus the 1981 decision by Egypt’s Journalists Syndicate to prohibit normalization with Israel, with rising demands to refer Adeeb to a syndicate investigation. That decision is reaffirmed at every general assembly held biennially to elect the syndicate head and half its council.
In response to the rising calls to investigate Adeeb, Syndicate Secretary-General Gamal Abdel Rahim issued a statement clarifying that Adeeb has not been a member of the syndicate since 2020, when a disciplinary body struck him off the syndicate’s rolls for dismissing dozens of journalists from Al-Alam Al-Youm, the newspaper whose board he chairs, and for retroactively closing their social insurance records as far back as 2014.
For his part, Journalists Syndicate President Khaled Elbalshy confirmed in a Facebook statement that “the syndicate would not have hesitated to punish Emad Adeeb had he still been a member.” He also warned that any member who violates the general assembly’s ban on “all forms of professional, syndicate, and personal normalization” would be referred for a syndicate investigation.
Former Syndicate President Yehia Qalash explained that when the syndicate adopted the decision in 1981, it did not have a clear text outlining penalties for those who violated the normalization ban. He added to Al Manassa, “But in the 1990s, the general assembly mandated the council to refer violators to a disciplinary board that would take appropriate measures, ranging from a reprimand and warning to temporary suspension, then permanent expulsion.”
Previously, the syndicate’s disciplinary board had issued a warning to Hala Mustafa for receiving the Israeli ambassador in her office at Al-Ahram in 2010, when she was editor-in-chief of Democracy magazine.
Another journalist, Hussein Siraj, deputy editor of October magazine, was banned from writing for three months after visiting Israel 25 times, attending the Israeli embassy’s ‘Independence Day’ event in Cairo, and meeting with several Israeli businessmen. Israel’s ‘Independence Day’ is intrinsically linked to the painful memory of the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe) that witnessed the murder, displacement, and dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land. This makes it a day of remembrance for a profound loss rather than a cause for celebration.
Qalash also clarified that the syndicate had imposed penalties on journalists Anis Mansour, Salah Montasser, Abdel Sattar El-Tawila, Abdel Moneim Said, and Lotfy El-Kholy, after they violated the decision to ban normalization with Israel.
However, on the other hand, media figure Hafez Al Mirazi defended the journalist’s right to communicate with any source. In a Facebook post, he wrote, “Interviewing an enemy, a terrorist, or even a child molester is simply journalism. It’s no different from interviewing a politician, businessman, or cleric. What matters is how professional the interview is and whether it’s being used opportunistically. Please don’t confuse the issues.”
As for journalist Yosri Fouda, he not only emphasized the journalist’s right and duty to seek out all available sources in pursuit of truth. He evidenced this by recalling how the BBC hosted President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s aides during the height of the 1956 Suez Crisis. He also highlighted that others did the same in similar circumstances, and that he himself had done so in various journalistic investigations.
Fouda was referring to his investigations for “Top Secret” on Al Jazeera, during which he interviewed Israeli sources as well as senior Al-Qaeda figures. According to him, “The real problem arises when you can’t answer the questions: Why this interview? Why now? And for what purpose? The issue is when a journalist knowingly or unknowingly allows themselves to be used to serve a specific political agenda.”
He continued, “This thing [Adeeb’s interview with Lapid] was not journalism. Please stop calling it that. It was a political act designed for malicious purposes. It no longer surprises anyone, but it does deepen public disgust,” Fouda said, adding some professional observations critiquing the interview.
Journalist Ahmed Ragab agreed with that premise, stating that “doing real journalistic work inside Israel or hosting Israeli guests is not considered normalization, so long as it’s done professionally and for a greater goal, which is to expose and uncover the Israeli project in the region.”
He drew a clear distinction between such journalistic engagement and outright collaboration, which he said occurs “when a journalist becomes a platform for Israeli hasbara (propaganda), or a tool used by Israeli politicians to advance their goals.”
