Egyptian Press Jumping to Conclusions

It was hard to find an article that wasn't talking about Egypt's national football team winning the Africa Cup of Nations this week; a team that failed to qualify for the World Cup but then failed to lose a single match following this for a record 19 games, beating 4 World Cup bound teams, clinching their seventh Cup, and becoming the first team in history to win three consecutive Nations Cups.

What I did end up finding was an article titled “Several birds, one stone” about a senior Hamas leader who was assassinated in his Dubai hotel room on January 20th. This shocked me as the article seemed like an important story and yet I had heard nothing about it in the several weeks that followed through mainstream U.S. news. I did some searching to see if I had simply not been paying attention and I managed to find one lone article reporting the incident in the New York Times. Apparently the American press didn't deem this story newsworthy which surprises me as it seems to have the makings of a very compelling piece; Arab-Israeli conflict, an assassination plot, hit squads, foreign political intrigue, what more does American media feel it needs to interest viewers in international news?

The story is about Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a senior leader of Hamas, a Palestinian organization deemed by many western countries as a terrorist organization. Al-Mabhouh was assassinated in his hotel room shortly after checking in on January 20th in Dubai. It is suspected that 7 assassins were tracking Al-Mabhouh and injected him with a poison that mimics the effects of a heart attack so that the true nature of the death was not discovered until some time after. After the truth came out Hamas immediately officially announced that Israeli agents had killed Mahmoud. Israel has yet to release an official comment on the matter.

What amazes me after this part in the story is the way that the Egyptian paper handles the matter given these facts. Their article treats the issue as if it was proven fact that Israel committed the attack. Even the story's byline reads, “Israel's assassination of a top Hamas official is clearly aimed at forcing the resistance group into a military response”. They offer little bits of evidence that point to Israel, saying “Israeli cabinet members were strongly hinting that Israel was in fact behind the killing,” and offering a few quotes from said members that did not confirm Israel's involvement in any way. Later on the article explains away this lack of concrete evidence with the statement “the assassination in Dubai is categorised by the Israeli Mossad as a 'silent mission' -- meaning it leaves no evidence leading to Israel”.

The fact that the article believes Israel to be responsible without tangible and verifiable evidence is not what surprises me. In all likelihood it was Mossad that carried out this assassination; they had the motive, training, and resources for such an operation. What is surprising is the disparity between the tenets of journalism in Egypt and the United States. I can't imagine the American press ever stating something to be fact without one single shred of evidence to back it up. A quick glance at the New York Times' article confirms that they do not go anywhere near affirming Israel's involvement in the incident. Their article simply reports what can be proven; that Hamas has accused Israel of the killing and that Israel has declined to comment thus far. Despite this they are still able to get across all of the information the other article does, although with decidedly less speculation as to the implications. Interestingly enough the NY Times appears to be preparing for Israel's admittance to the attack, as they go to great lengths to seemingly explain why Israel would be justified in carrying out this attack.

I feel like I am already getting a better understanding of how the international press covers the same events differently from our press. I can see the advantages and disadvantages of the varying choices both countries make, but neither country's coverage can give you the same understanding and perspective as comparing them will.