Jamal Khashoggi was geen groot criticus van de Saoedische dictatuur en bepaald geen held

As`ad AbuKhalil schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen bericht, eerder gepubliceerd op Consortium News, stelt dat de in feite hysterische reactie in het westen en dan m.n. die van westerse massamedia over de verdwijning van Khashoggi voor een fiks deel een onoordeelkundige beeld geeft over 'journalist' Khashoggi.

Zonder de vele artikelen van Khashoggi te hebben gelezen die in Saoedi-Arabië werden gepubliceerd en zonder veel van diens leven te weten, hebben ze in feite een ex-fanatiek aanhanger van het Saoedisch koningshuis (bloederige dictators) schoon gewassen.......

Khashoggi was heel lang een groot bewonderaar van het Saoedische koningshuis en heeft zich het grootste deel van zijn leven achter deze dictatuur en al haar bloederige uitspattingen geschaard.........

Khashoggi zou zelfs aan de kant van Osama bin Laden hebben gevochten, al was het dan als embedded journalist......

Vergeet niet dat alle jaren dat Khashoggi in Saoedi-Arabië werkte, echte journalistiek niet was toegestaan, laat staan kritiek leveren op de dictatuur....... Collega's die door de dictatuur van S-A werden opgepakt en gemarteld vanwege 'de geur van kritiek' in hun berichtgeving, behoefden niet te rekenen op steun van Khashoggi.......

Zelf concludeer ik na een aantal columns van Khashoggi in de Washington Post* (WaPo) te hebben gelezen, dat Khashoggi weliswaar vuile handen heeft gemaakt in Saoedi-Arabië, al was het maar het niet opkomen voor collega's die niet zo braaf waren en zwaar werden gestraft, maar hij in de VS wel degelijk fiks tekeerging tegen S-A en bijvoorbeeld haar smerige oorlog in Jemen (die hij overigens niet als genocide aanduidde, zoals het overgrote deel van de westerse collega's dat nalaten)......

Er is niet veel nodig om de doodstraf te krijgen in S-A en gezien een aantal van zijn columns overschreed hij daarmee een lijn, die waarschijnlijk tot zijn dood leidde..... Zo had hij verder kritiek op o.a de blokkade van Qatar en de propaganda van S-A tegen Iran, zaken die in S-A 'doodstrafwaardig' zijn...... Kortom Khashoggi is ten inkeer gekomen, wat hem niet vrijpleit van het jarenlang propaganda maken voor het bloederige Saoedische koningshuis.

Lees het artikel van AbuKhalil en oordeel zelf:

Jamal Khashoggi Was No Critic of the Saudi Regime

October 16, 2018 at 10:51 am

Written by Consortium News

Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, who disappeared in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week is not quite the critic of the Saudi regime that the Western media says he is.

(CN Op-ed) — The disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week has generated huge international publicity, but unsurprisingly, little in Saudi-controlled, Arab media. The Washington Post, for whom Khashoggi wrote, and other Western media, have kept the story alive, increasing the pressure on Riyadh to explain its role in the affair.

It’s been odd to read about Khashoggi in Western media. David Hirst in The Guardian claimed Khashoggi merely cared about absolutes such as “truth, democracy, and freedom”. Human Rights Watch’s director described him as representing “outspoken and critical journalism.”

But did he pursue those absolutes while working for Saudi princes?

Khashoggi was a loyal member of the Saudi propaganda apparatus. There is no journalism allowed in the kingdom: there have been courageous Saudi women and men who attempted to crack the wall of rigid political conformity and were persecuted and punished for their views. Khashoggi was not among them.

Some writers suffered while Khashoggi was their boss at Al-Watan newspaper. Khashoggi—contrary to what is being written—was never punished by the regime, except lightly two years ago, when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) banned him from tweeting and writing for Al-Hayat, the London-based, pan-Arab newspaper owned by Saudi Prince Khalid bin Sultan.

By historical contrast, Nasir As-Sa`id was a courageous secular Arab Nationalist writer who fled the kingdom in 1956 and settled in Cairo, and then Beirut. He authored a massive (though tabloid-like) volume about the history of the House of Saud. He was unrelenting in his attacks against the Saudi royal family.

For this, the Saudi regime paid a corrupt PLO leader in Beirut (Abu Az-Za`im, tied to Jordanian intelligence) to get rid of As-Sa`id. He kidnapped As-Sa`id from a crowded Beirut street in 1979 and delivered him to the Saudi embassy there. He was presumably tortured and killed (some say his body was tossed from a plane over the “empty quarter” desert in Saudi Arabia). Such is the track record of the regime.

Finding the Right Prince

Khashoggi was an ambitious young reporter who knew that to rise in Saudi journalism you don’t need professionalism, courage, or ethics. In Saudi Arabia, you need to attach yourself to the right prince. Early on, Khashoggi became close to two of them: Prince Turki Al-Faysal (who headed Saudi intelligence) and his brother, Prince Khalid Al-Faysal, who owned Al-Watan (The Motherland) where Khashoggi had his first (Arabic) editing job.

Khashoggi distinguished himself with an eagerness to please and an uncanny ability to adjust his views to those of the prevailing government. In the era of anti-Communism and the promotion of fanatical jihad in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Khashoggi was a true believer. He fought with Osama bin Laden and promoted the cause of the Mujahideen.

The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius and others want to embellish this by implying that he was an “embedded” reporter—as if bin Laden’s army would invite independent journalists to report on their war efforts. The entire project of covering the Afghan Mujahideen and promoting them in the Saudi press was the work of the chief of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki, Khashoggi’s principal patron-prince.

Western media coverage of Khashoggi’s career (by people who don’t know Arabic) presents a picture far from reality. They portray a courageous investigative journalist upsetting the Saudi regime. Nothing is further from the truth: there is no journalism in Saudi Arabia; there is only crude and naked propaganda.

Editors are trusted individuals who have demonstrated long-time loyalty. Khashoggi admitted to an Arab reporter last year in an interview from Istanbul that in Saudi Arabia he had been both editor and censor. Editors of Saudi regime papers (mouthpieces of princes and kings) enforce government rules and eliminate objectionable material.

Khashoggi never spoke out for Saudis in distress. He ran into trouble in two stints as Al-Watan editor because of articles he published by other writers, not by himself, that were mildly critical of the conservative religious establishment—which he at times supported. He was relocated to another government media job— to shield him from the religious authorities.

Khashoggi was the go-to man for Western journalists covering the kingdom, appointed to do so by the regime. He may have been pleasant in conversation with reporters but he never questioned the royal legitimacy. And that goes for his brief one-year stint in Washington writing for the Post.

A Reactionary

Khashoggi was a reactionary: he supported all monarchies and sultanates in the region and contended they were “reformable.” To him, only the secular republics, in tense relations with the Saudis, such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, defied reform and needed to be overthrown. He favored Islamization of Arab politics along Muslim Brotherhood lines.

Khashoggi’s vision was an “Arab uprising” led by the Saudi regime. In his Arabic writings he backed MbS’s “reforms” and even his “war on corruption,” derided in the region and beyond. He thought that MbS’s arrests of the princes in the Ritz were legitimate (though he mildly criticized them in a Post column) even as his last sponsoring prince, Al-Walid bin Talal, was locked up in the luxury hotel. Khashoggi even wanted to be an advisor to MbS, who did not trust him and turned him down.

Writing in the Post (with an Arabic version) Khashoggi came across as a liberal Democrat favoring democracy and reform. But he didn’t challenge Saudi regime legitimacy or Western Mideast policy. Mainstream journalists were enamored with him. They saw him as an agreeable Arab who didn’t criticize their coverage of the region, but praised it, considering the mainstream U.S. press the epitome of professional journalism. Khashoggi was essentially a token Arab writing for a paper with a regrettable record of misrepresenting Arabs.

In Arabic, his Islamist sympathies with Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) were unmistakable. Forgotten or little known in the West is that during the Cold War the Saudis sponsored, funded, and nurtured the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the progressive, secular camp led by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Ikhwan controlled the Saudi educational system raising Saudi students to admire the Brotherhood. But Sep. 11 changed the Saudi calculus: the rulers wanted a scapegoat for their role in sponsoring Islamist fanaticism and the Ikhwan was the perfect target. That made Khashoggi suspect too.

Hints Against Him

Recent articles in the Saudi press hinted that the regime might move against him. He had lost his patrons but the notion that Khashoggi was about to launch an Arab opposition party was not credible. The real crime was that Khashoggi was backed alone by Ikhwan supporters, namely the Qatari regime and the Turkish government.

A writer in Okaz, a daily in Jeddah, accused him of meeting with the Emir of Qatar at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York and of having ties to “regional and international intelligence services.” If true it may have sealed his fate. Qatar is now the number one enemy of the Saudi regime—arguably worse than Iran.

Khashoggi was treated as a defector and one isn’t allowed to defect from the Saudi Establishment. The last senior defections were back in 1962, when Prince Talal and Prince Badr joined Nasser’s Arab nationalist movement in Egypt.

Khashoggi had to be punished in a way that would send shivers down the spine of other would-be defectors.

By As`ad AbuKhalil / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

====================================

* 'Read Jamal Khashoggi’s columns for The Washington Post' 

Zie ook:
'Bolton (o.a. Trumps adviseur buitenlandse zaken) wil de Khashoggi tapes niet horen, hij is het arabisch niet machtig....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Khashoggi: VS prijs voor uit de wind houden van Saoedische terreurkroonprins MBS >> 450 miljard dollar'

'Trump geeft toe dat de VS niets te maken heeft met het beleid in andere landen >> 'gelukkigen' in deze: de moordenaars van Khashoggi.......'

'Trump weet het zeker, de top van de Saoedische dictatuur wist niet van de moord op Khashoggi....'

'Tony Blair weigert na de moord op Khashoggi een lucratieve deal met Saoedi-Arabië op te zeggen'

'Saoedi-Arabië vindt zich een baken van licht tegen het duister verspreidende Iran..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Macron (Franse president) laat ware gezicht zien op vraag over wapenleveringen aan Saoedi-Arabië'

''Onderzoek' naar moord op Khashoggi in Saoedisch consulaat te Istanbul voorafgegaan door grote schoonmaakactie........'

'Khashoggi waarschijnlijk vermoord vanwege kennis over de 9/11 aanslagen'

'Khashoggi terecht groot in media, waar de aandacht voor Saoedische genocide op sjiieten Jemen amper wordt genoemd'

'Saoedi-Arabië heeft 15 'psychopathische macho's nodig om één journalist te vermoorden'

Arabieren en Afghanen zijn bepaald niet bedroefd om de dood van McCain......

In een opiniestuk van As’ad AbuKhalil in Consortium News (door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media), beschrijft hij hoe anders arabieren en een volk als de Afghanen kijken naar de dood van oorlogsmisdadiger, oorlogshitser en grootlobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex McCain.

In een voorbeeld geeft hij aan hoe verschillend alleen al een uitspraak van McCain wordt geïnterpreteerd door westerlingen of arabieren. Een vrouw in een zaal waar hij vanwege z'n presidentscampagne van 2008 sprak, kreeg van McCain als reactie op haar uitlating dat Obama een arabier is, dat Obama geen arabier is, hij is een nette familieman. Westerse media jubelden 't uit, wat een fantastische man die McCain, immers hij zou als republikein Obama hebben verdedigd...... 

Deze ontkenning van McCain zal iemand die goed geïnformeerd is over WOII, doen denken aan ontkenningen in en na de oorlog, de ontkenning dat iemand geen fanatieke nazi kan/kon zijn, daar hij een 'nette familieman' was...... Zoals men na de oorlog maar al te vaak ontdekte van fanatieke psychopathische nazi's die in concentratiekampen tekeergingen, zoals kampcommandanten, die thuis de brave huisvader uithingen.... 

Hoe een arabier over deze uitspraak zal oordelen is wel duidelijk, hij of zij ziet in de uitspraak van McCain een bevooroordeelde westerse klootzak, die stelt dat een arabier geen nette persoon kan zijn........

Uiteraard zien arabieren McCain zoals hij was, een smerige oorlogsmisdadiger door wie tienduizenden mensen om het leven zijn gekomen, zo stond de schoft ook achter de illegale oorlog tegen Irak (intussen meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden...), sterker nog, daar was hij al meteen na 9/11 voorstander van, zoals hij ook voorstander was van de illegale oorlog tegen Syrië (al vanaf 2006 voorbereid door de VS, natuurlijk met hulp van McCain....), verder was hij voor een oorlog tegen Iran..... 

Waarbij dit alles nog opgeteld moet worden, dat hij terreurstaat Israël zwaar steunde en alle bloedvergieten door die fascistische apartheidsstaat niet eens bekritiseerde, neem het grote aantal moorden begaan door Israëlische scherpschutters, die sinds maart dit jaar aan de grens met de Gazastrook een groot aantal ongewapende, vreedzaam demonstrerende Palestijnen hebben doodgeschoten*, terwijl ze zich NB op 'Palestijns grondgebied' bevonden...... Daarbij vermoordden deze psychopaten zelfs kinderen, invaliden, duidelijk herkenbare journalisten en als zodanig herkenbare medisch hulpverleners...... McCain was veel eerder zelfs tegen de onderhandelingen van Israël met Yasser Arafat (PLO)........

Lees het uitstekende stuk van AbuKhalil voor veel meer duidelijkheid (zo vertelt hij dat de directeur van Human Rights Watch een lovend stuk over McCain schreef....), voorts zie de berichten over McCain onder de links, die weer onderaan in dit bericht terug zijn te vinden:

Being on the deadly end of his policies, many Arabs view John McCain in a very different way than the U.S. mass media has presented him.

The destruction of Mosul. (Wikimedia Commons)

(CN Op-ed) — It is not unusual that Arabs and Americans look at the same event from divergent lenses. Take, for instance, a scene from John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign when he told  a woman in the audience who had called Obama an Arab: “No, Ma`am. He is not an Arab. He’s a decent family man.”

That brief exchange has been tweeted and retweeted thousands of time in the last few days following McCain’s death. It has been promoted by people in mainstream media (and think tanks and academia) as evidence of the civility, “classiness”, and lack of prejudice of McCain.  Yet, Arabs saw something entirely different in that exchange.  They saw bigotry from McCain, who was denying that Obama was Arab in the same way one denies that someone is a Nazi.  He clearly implied that an Arab can’t be a decent family man.  In fact, Gen. Colin Powell was the only U.S. politician who pointed this out at the time.  But a new image of McCain is being formulated before our eyes.

For Arabs in the Middle East and in the U.S., the view of McCain does not conform to the hagiography of U.S. media.  People in the region remember well that McCain supported every U.S. and Israeli war, invasion, or attack against any Arab target. They remember that he was a major proponent of invading Iraq and argued for the expansion of U.S. wars into Iran, Libya and Syria in the wake of Sep. 11.

While the Washington director of Human Rights Watch was writing tributes to McCain, Arabs were remembering him as a champion of Middle East dictators (except those on bad terms with the U.S. and Israel.) It was not a coincidence that both the official Saudi regime lobby in DC and AIPAC promptly released emotional eulogies for McCain. The English-language, Arab Times (a mouthpiece of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman) dedicated a special issue to him.

McCain never wavered in his conformity with AIPAC’s agenda.  He never had disagreements with the Israeli government except in outbidding them in his hostility to Palestinian rights and the usefulness of negotiations with Arabs.

Yet in the context of Washington politics, McCain was not regarded as the anti-Arab/anti-Muslim that he was, perhaps because there were Arabs and Muslims that he approved of. He championed, for instance, Iraqi opposition figure Ahmad Chalabi (a key fabricator in the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq) and the Afghan Muhajedeen. He was very close to Arab despots and approved arms sales to their repressive armies and intelligence apparatuses. He spoke of democracy but in the way that invading and colonizing states glorify “freedom” to justify conquest.

McCain was a champion of Syrian rebels and pictures of him with Jihadi extremists (in Libya and in Syria) were circulated by Arabs on social media in the last week. while the Washington press corps and Human Rights Watch were paying tribute him as “a defender of democracy.”

Schooled by Scoop

McCain was mentored on the Middle East, according to his biographies, by Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who for years was the dean of ardent Zionists in the U.S. Congress. Those were in the days when a few members—mostly Republicans—dared to challenge AIPAC. McCain’s first trip to Israel was a member of a delegation led by Jackson when McCain was the Navy’s liaison to the Senate.  Typically, like all U.S. politicians who visit Israel, McCain became convinced by  the view from Israeli military helicopters of the vulnerability of “little Israel” and that Israel needed to continue to occupy, invade, attack and assassinate.

Self-propelled howitzers of the Gaddafi forces, destroyed by French Rafale airplanes at the west-southern outskirts of Benghazi, Libya, in March 2011 in another war backed by McCain. (Wikimedia Commons)

In Congress, McCain managed to become associated with AIPAC’s agenda more than his colleagues. He always argued for more support for Israel. And when Israel and the U.S. both accepted negotiations with Yasser Arafat, he remained skeptical, raising doubts about the intentions of the Palestinians.

After his election to Congress, McCain quickly set himself up as an expert on defense and foreign policy. His first foreign policy posture in Congress was in 1983, when he opposed U.S. intervention in Lebanon, but not on humanitarian grounds. Instead he basically argued that far more force was needed against Syria and its allies in Lebanon. This became a pattern for the Vietnam veteran: that more force is always needed wherever U.S. troops are deployed. Some attribute the “surge” to him, as if the surge really salvaged American fortunes in Iraq.

In an article written during his 2008 presidential campaign, The New York Times talked about the McCain Doctrine and referred to his reaction to Sep. 11, when he argued for war on Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan.  For McCain, war was the only recourse for dealing with foes of the U.S. and Israel. And war was not effective for McCain without massive force and heavy troop deployments.

The Senator and the Ikhwan

McCain was a champion of the Muslim Brotherhood (Jam’iyat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin), even if that put him at odds with Gulf rulers who he also supported.  This position may seem uncharacteristic given his longstanding fealty to AIPAC and its agenda, and his general unfriendliness to Arabs and Muslims. But McCain may have undertaken this role at the behest of AIPAC.

Homs, Syria

In the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, McCain negotiated with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt.  It was after a series of visits from leaders of those movements to Washington that they basically reversed their traditional position on Israel. Leaders of An-Nahda rescinded their plan to criminalize normalization with Israel, while leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood pledged commitment to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. 

Similarly, the stance of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood abandoned any hostility toward Israel and even toward its occupation of the Golan heights.  McCain’s confidence in the ability of the Ikhwan to deliver the interests of Israel and U.S., led him to oppose Sisi’s coup as he trusted that Mohammed Morsi would be able to guard U.S. interests and the interests of the Egyptian-Israeli military-intelligence alliance.

McCain became, in this manner, an unabashed champion of what is called in the West (and in the Gulf regimes’ media) the “Syrian revolution”.  He also trusted the Islamists in the “revolution” and hoped that Israeli interests would be served by a change of regime that would be aligned with the U.S. and Israel. The risk of promoting Jihadi Islamist rebels was, for McCain and the Israeli lobby, worth the effort.  For that, McCain’s death was mourned by leaders of the “liberal” exile opposition and by Jihadis of the Syrian rebels, including Huthaifah `Azzam, the son of `Abdullah `Azzam (the mentor of Usamah bin Laden). (Huthaifah `Azzam later deleted his post after I drew attention to it).

The career of McCain intersected with the rise of AIPAC on Capitol Hill.  He also benefited from the Reagan and Bush Doctrines, both of which relied on the use of massive force against the enemies of U.S. and Israel.

The assessment of McCain can’t hope to achieve a measure of balance given the adulation by mainstream media for a man whose political sins were always instantly forgotten.  His reference to Vietnamese by a pejorative term was seen as an example of his frank talk—not of his prejudice. His involvement with Charles Keating was seen as an example of a minor error and not of the corruption of an influential senator.  His endorsement of war, the Israeli occupation, and his embrace of tyrants (especially in the Gulf and North Africa) have not been perceived as inconsistent with the media’s image of a champion of human rights.

In the end, John McCain was a major face of American empire, just as were two people who attended his funeral–Obama and Bush –and one who did not, Trump.

By As’ad AbuKhalil / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

==========================================
* Het totale aantal doden sinds maart dit jaar, Palestijnse mensen die door 'heldhaftige scherpschutters werden vermoord) lag op 13 augustus jl. op 168 waaronder 23 kinderen..... Het aantal gewonden (van licht- tot zwaargewond) lag op meer dan 20.000..... (waarbij 68 Palestijnen een amputatie moesten ondergaan...)

Zie ook:
'McCain terminaal ziek: vier als het zover is zijn dood luidruchtig, niets om je voor te schamen'

'McCain oorlogsmisdadiger >> massaal ten onrechte geëerd na z'n dood'

'John McCaine: politieke helden zijn op den duur meestal teleurstellend'

'Begrafenis McCain: onbeschaamde verering van een massamoordenaar en oorlogshitser'