To view this content from YouTube, it is necessary to allow the collection of viewing rates and YouTube ads.

It appears that an application in your Internet browser is preventing the video player from loading. In order to view this content, you must cancel its use.

Published on: 02/14/2026 - 18:15

In this new episode of the Dhaif and Masirah program, Egyptian journalist Hafez Al-Mirazi opens wide pages of his personal and professional biography. In this dialogue, the Egyptian journalist provides testimony to the transformations of media and politics in Egypt and the Arab world. This is in addition to the relationship of the press with authority, the idea of ​​independence, and the cost of adhering to an opinion.

Minya...the Saidi root that created “professional stubbornness”

Al-Mirazi begins in Minya, from an area on the border of the countryside and the city, and combines simplicity, patience, and practical sense. He describes himself in a sarcastic tone: “I am a hard-headed Sa’idan,” then he adds: “However, the people of Minya are not very cruel... I am an Sa’id, but I am moderate.”

However, this “stubbornness,” which he describes as a joke, will turn in his career into something like a “backbone” in his professional personality: the insistence that what is wrong is wrong and what is right is right, and that manipulating principles under the pressure of the moment leaves a person without an internal reference.

Father and education: an unfinished dream and an ongoing commandment

Al-Mirazi stops at the image of the father as a fundamental pillar in shaping his personality. His father, who did not obtain a basic education, saw in his eldest son an opportunity to achieve what he had not achieved, and he was counting on him as a compensation project for a path he was deprived of. Al-Mirazi recounts that his father wished him a “safe” path: a public job, a stable administrative path, and perhaps a high position in the state, but at the same time he respected his choices.

The father's early departure, when he was fifty-two years old, left an impact on the son's soul, especially since it came at a moment when his interest in politics began to increase. Al-Mirazi admits that his sense of responsibility towards education and knowledge remained linked to that unfinished paternal dream.

From the dream of rights to the "discovery" of political science

In his academic career, Al-Mirazi reveals a turning point that changed his life: a childhood accident made him lose the ability to write with his right hand, and forced him to rebuild himself educationally again, from excelling in mathematics to shifting towards the literary path.

Hafez Al-Mirazi's dream at the beginning was to join the Faculty of Law, not for the sake of a public position, but for the sake of an ideal image: a lawyer who defends the poor and the oppressed. He laughs at himself as he recalls those “overwhelming” dreams, but he admits that they were true. However, the university reality at the time prompted him to choose the Faculty of Economics and Political Science at Cairo University, where he began his university studies in 1975 and graduated in 1979.

College was not initially his first choice, but it quickly became “the home he found himself in.” He mentions his fascination with the professors, and with the knowledge horizon that the study of politics and international relations opened for him.

January 1977: Bread Uprising

During his university studies, he was active in student life, and lived through the political tide before it broke following the events of January 18 and 19, 1977, which he considered a turning point in the decline of the role of the student movement.

Al-Mirazi describes his university period in the 1970s as extremely politically charged. The university was an open space for discussion, hosting political figures and student movements with multiple political orientations. But this climate practically ended after the events of January 1977, when political activity within universities was almost completely suppressed.

After these events, Al-Mirazi explains that the political field within the university was undermined, and space was left for certain movements to move, within the framework of a calculated struggle against the left and the civil movement. But he adds the phrase that sums up many Arab experiences: “Turn the magic on the magician.”

He says: “Using one movement against another may succeed temporarily, but in the end it turns against the one who used it.”

Voice of the Arabs: The National Dream

In 1980, Hafez Al-Mirazi passed the application test for the Egyptian Radio, joining Sawt Al-Arab Radio, an Arab nationalist radio that was, at that stage, highly symbolic. Despite his explicit opposition to the policies of President Anwar Sadat, especially the peace treaty, he found in Sawt Al-Arab a media space that allowed him to work.

Al-Mirazi declares that he was part of the leftist movement that rejected the Camp David Accords, considering that it wasted the gains of the October War, dwarfed Egypt's regional role, and did not resolve the essence of the conflict. He emphasizes that true peace cannot be rejected, but an isolated peace that leaves basic issues unresolved is untenable.

He confirms that the idea of ​​the “last war” was not logical, because the conflict was not resolved radically, but rather froze. He adds that true peace does not come with one party abdicating its role, but rather with comprehensive guarantees that prevent the return of conflict in other forms.

Washington: The Voice of America experience and the meaning of having space for the other party

In early 1985, Hafez Al-Mirazi moved to the United States of America, then joined Voice of America radio. He acknowledges the paradox: He rejects many American policies, but the establishment here has a law and standards that require the “other point of view” to be made available to some extent.

He gives the example of the First Gulf War in 1991: while Egyptian Radio and Voice of the Arabs were fully supportive of the war in Iraq, the Arab section in Washington could host voices harshly critical of America on the air.

Trump, as seen by Hafez Al-Mirazi: a break with the traditions of the state

Hafez Al-Mirazi considers the experience of Donald Trump as a watershed moment in American political history, not only because it represents a new conservative right, but also because it broke even established traditions within the American establishment itself.

He explains that the type of leaders and ministers that came with Trump is radically different from those that prevailed from the Reagan era until the end of the Biden era, as the criterion is no longer experience, political weight, or the ability to manage the state, but rather the extent of personal obedience and willingness to accept insult. He says that Trump, in his first term, tried to choose ministers according to “old standards,” so he brought in strong personalities, but they did not last long, because they disagreed with him and rejected the logic of absolute personal loyalty.

Then, Al-Mirazi adds, Trump learned his lesson, and decided the next time to bring in only those who were considered his own creation, people “if he had not put them in their positions, they would not have dreamed of being anything,” which made the administration closer to a closed group based on loyalty, not competence.

Al Jazeera: Why did he accept... and why did he resign?

Hafez Al-Mirazi tells why he accepted to work for Al Jazeera despite his hesitation. He explains that Al Jazeera, in its beginnings, was based on clear professional rules, inspired by the experience of the BBC, and at a stage when the funding state had not yet entered into broad regional influence struggles. He says that the decisive criterion for him was simple and clear: Is he allowed to host opponents? Is it possible to direct criticism even to the state that owns the canal?

He confirms that he insisted, from the beginning, on hosting Qatari dissidents and critics of existing policies, and he was actually allowed to do so, and that this margin was even seen as a source of strength and credibility for the channel.

But as the political context and editorial line changed later, this prompted him to resign.

After Al Jazeera: A media path governed by critical distance and difficult choices

After his resignation from Al Jazeera in 2007, Hafez Al-Mirazi entered a new phase in his media career, characterized by offers and a lack of real spaces for independence. He returned to Egypt with a clear hope: the creation of an independent local news channel, a network of correspondents in twenty cities, a new professional model. But the authorities did not accept the idea and the name.

He then moved to work with Al Arabiya Channel to present the “Cairo Studio” program, but he soon found himself again facing the same ceiling: a space of freedom that appears broad in appearance, but narrows when approaching sensitive issues or criticizing the funding countries, as he describes it.

He confirms that as the January 2011 revolution approached, political pressure was clearly increasing, and that the program he presented began to transform from a real space for discussion into an unwanted burden, especially after hosting certain figures.

After the January 25 revolution, Hafez Al-Mirazi, along with journalist Hamdi Qandil, was offered to present a new program on Egyptian television to replace the program “Al-Bayt Al-Baytak.” Al-Mirazi agreed to the idea, and began preparing for the program a month before its launch date.

But he collided with a fundamental condition that he completely rejected, which was prior intervention in questions or the possibility of deleting answers, considering that accepting this would emptie any media experience of its meaning.

Consistency as a supreme value in a time of media coups

In 2015, Al Mirazi enters the world of YouTube. Here he becomes “his own editor.” No director prevents a guest, and no financier imposes a topic. He says that the entire media has changed, and that the public may disagree with him, but what the public is asking for is consistency: not to justify repression here and attack it there.

He adds that the public may disagree with his opinion, but what they should not feel is that its owner has abandoned his positions or changed his standards. He also admits that he wishes the digital work he presents today was more professional, with a full production team, but independent financing is difficult. However, this small margin is preferable to a conditionally large platform.

Related keywords

The content you want to browse is no longer in service or is currently unavailable.