Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

Who is lying about Jamal Khashoggi, Turkey or Saudi Arabia?

Published

on

Who is lying about Jamal Khashoggi Turkey or Saudi Arabia

In the case of journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance, either the Turks or the Saudis are lying. For all intents and purposes, it is completely infeasible to believe they are both telling the truth. Either way, Khashoggi, who wrote for the Washington Post and has resided in the United States, is either dead or a prisoner.

Here are the assertions and alleged pieces of evidence Turkey has laid out for the world:

  • Video footage shows Khashoggi entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul but never leaving
  • Numerous cameras at the compound were allegedly not recording at the time of his visit
  • A 15-member Saudi “kill team” has been identified
  • The team was seen entering the compound when Khashoggi was there
  • Despite offering to allow an entry, the Saudis have not allowed any Turkish investigators into the compound
  • The Saudis claim he left unharmed, but no evidence has been provided to back this claim and no video footage of him outside the compound after he entered has been found
  • Khashoggi’s fiancee waited outside for him and has not seen him since he entered

All of this, if true, is pretty damaging to the Saudi’s claim that he left unharmed. However, before we jump to the obvious conclusion, let’s first consider a few things. First, the video evidence presented by Turkey has been heavily edited and contains inconsistencies, according to the Washington Post.

We have a likely case of murder or kidnap by the Saudis, but there’s still a chance that Turkey is attempting to frame them. There really aren’t any other viable possibilities.

That means one of them is lying. We’re not talking about little lies. Either Turkey or Saudi Arabia has captured or killed Khashoggi and is in the process of trying to cover it up. While all the evidence points to Saudi Arabia, the evidence is all provided by Turkey. If they were responsible, then it would be easy for them to compile this information and pin it on the Saudis.

If I were to put percentages to the likelihood of guilt, it would be 90/10 that Turkey is telling the truth and Saudi Arabia is covering up an abduction and/or murder. Unfortunately, it’s not quite certain enough to dismiss Turkey altogether.

What this means to us

Both countries are sort of allies. Turkey is our NATO ally and the Saudis have been our second best partners in the Middle East with Israel being our best. Whoever perpetrated this crime and coverup should no longer be our allies in any regard. Both nations are important to the United States, though Saudi Arabia is much more important as the both the catalyst for a future Middle East peace deal as well as one of the forces that props up the U.S. economy despite over $21 trillion worth of debt.

None of that matters if they murdered Khashoggi. We cannot allow our government to do business with a regime that perpetrates this type of crime against someone with deep U.S. ties. He was critical of the Saudi government, which may be enough of a motive to order a hit. Or, it could have been something else. Regardless of why he was abducted and/or killed, it would be unacceptable to continue our positive relationship with them.

Some would argue that it’s just one life that is outweighed by the importance of Saudi Arabia’s (or Turkey’s) friendship during these tumultuous times, but that’s not how we work. That’s not the American way. “Just one life” is too many for a government to take in cold blood.

The whole truth may never been known to the general public. One thing is certain: whoever abducted or killed Khashoggi should be immediately removed from any aid or weapons sales agreements we currently have in place.

Update: Senator Rand Paul has the same idea, though he’s apparently 100% certain it was the Saudis who perpetrated the act.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Foreign Affairs

General Jack Keans on Trump’s plan to send more troops to Middle East

Published

on

General Jack Keans on Trumps plan to send more troops to Middle East

As the Pentagon sends 1000 more troops to the Middle East to counter Iran’s latest round of aggressions, many Democrats and media talking heads are attacking the whole mess. They’re blaming the President for antagonizing the Iranians, first by pulling out of the nuclear deal and then by imposing harsh sanctions on them. But as General Jack Keans told Shannon Bream on Fox News last night, the Iranians have been the ones antagonizing the whole time.

Where did all the money go that the Obama administration sent them? Over $100 billion is apparently gone as the people continue to struggle to survive, yet nothing seems to have come from the generous gift.

If the sanctions were really the problem, why won’t Iran stop engaging in proxy wars, funding terrorism, and continuing their development of nuclear weapons? They were testing ballistic missiles even before the sanctions. They were engaged in Yemen before the sanctions. And yes, they never stopped funding terrorism. If they would stop these things, the sanctions could be lifted, but Iran refuses.

Keans is correct in asserting the President has made the right moves. The only question that remains is whether or not Iran will comply or if they’ll continue down the road to war.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

An open letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham on his two-state solution resolution

Published

on

An open letter to Sen Lindsey Graham on his two-state solution resolution

Dear Senator Graham,

It is being reported in the news that you are planning to introduce a nonbinding resolution in the Senate, together with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), calling on President Trump to support a “two-state solution” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. If true, it would be a tragic error.

As a longtime supporter of Israel, I am sure that you’re aware that the GOP removed the two-state solution from its platform in 2016. I’m sure that you also know that the president’s Middle East team has been discussing Israel’s right to retain parts of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank). By supporting the two-state solution at this time, you are not only going against the growing sentiment in your party that opposes a Palestinian (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) state and the danger it would be to Israel’s survival, but you are also taking a stand against the obvious democratic wishes of the Israeli people. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently made it clear that he no longer supports such a path to resolving the conflict by announcing his intention to annex the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank).

In a recent interview with the McClatchy news service, you were quoted as saying “I don’t want to get in the way of Jared,” referring to Deal of the Century architect Jared Kushner, “but I can’t envision a one-state solution. It won’t work. I mean, you’d have to disenfranchise the Palestinians. That won’t work. If you let them vote as one state, they’ll overwhelm the Israelis. That won’t work. So, if you want to have a democratic, secure Jewish state, I think you have to have two states to make that work.”

Sen. Graham, with all due respect, you are echoing the common wisdom that has prevailed for the past forty years, but the facts on the ground have changed. Recent polling shows that Israelis understand the new reality, but the world is lagging beyond, with the very noticeable exception being the growing number of realists in the GOP. President Trump, as well, has expressed a remarkable willingness to explore “new ideas”, since the “land for peace” formula clearly hasn’t worked. This was proven by the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, which simply gave Iranian-backed Hamas the land from which they are now firing rockets at Israeli cities. Doing the same in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem (which is the primary Palestinian demand) would be suicidal for Israel.

However, you have mentioned that a Palestinian state must be created, because of the demographic danger; that without creating a separate Palestinian state, Israel would be “overwhelmed” by the Palestinian vote. This presumes that in a one-state solution, all the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria would be given automatic citizenship. Yes, you and I seem to agree, granting such instant citizenship would be the definition of foolishness. No self-preserving country in its right mind would grant citizenship (and the right to vote in national elections) without a lengthy process of vetting such non-citizens, as is done in the United States and most free countries.

In my peace plan, which is pointedly called Peace for Peace (as opposed to the failed land for peace formula), I call for Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, alongside a path to loyal citizenship for the non-citizens, mostly Arabs (or Palestinians, if you prefer), now residing in the areas that Israel recaptured in the defensive Six Day War of 1967. Such a process would include a three-year comprehensive good citizenship course, followed by two-three years of national service, culminating with an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel.

Many non-citizens in Judea and Samaria, many of whom I know personally, would seize at the opportunity to become loyal Israeli citizens. Many others would refuse, thereby minimizing the demographic danger to Israel, but the truth be told, noted demographers such as Yoram Ettinger have shown that the Jewish birth rates in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem have been sky-rocketing for the past two decades, way beyond that of the Arabs. Israel is undergoing a social renaissance, in which the traditional family is having a resurgence and having large Jewish families is fashionable once again. Therefore, when we examine the current reality, we see that the demographic threat is greatly exaggerated by those who cling to the land for peace agenda.

Of course, I haven’t yet mentioned Israel’s historical rights to these areas, which I have documented extensively in my most recent book, “Trump and the Jews”, but you haven’t disputed those rights. I also haven’t mentioned that we can’t make peace with a Palestinian Authority that for years has been giving salary payments to each and every terrorist that has killed or wounded an Israeli. This includes the three Fatah terrorists who shot and wounded me and my then three-year-old son in December of 2001 and their salaries continue to this day.

Given the new, pragmatic approach of President Trump, I am strongly urging you to rethink the dual mantras of land for peace and the two-state solution. As Donald would say, it’s time for new ideas.

Bio: David Rubin, former Mayor of Shiloh Israel, is the author of the new book, “Trump and the Jews”. Rubin is the founder and president of Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund, established after he and his then three-year-old son were wounded in a terror attack. He can be found at www.DavidRubinIsrael.com or at www.ShilohIsraelChildren.org.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

U.S. halts new aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras until steps are taken to end border crisis

Published

on

US halts new aid to El Salvador Guatemala and Honduras until steps are taken to end border crisis

The State Department announced Monday the United States will discontinue sending new foreign aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras until the Central American nations take “concrete action” to curb the flow of illegal immigrants to our southern border.

“We completed a review, and previously awarded grants and contracts will continue with current funding,” said State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus. “State Department assistance in support of priorities of the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security priorities to help the Northern Triangle governments take actions that will protect the U.S. border and counter transnational organized crime will also continue.”

In March, President Trump said he would stop sending aid until they figure out how to do their part to stop the border crisis.

Ortagus continued, “We will not provide new funds for programs in those countries until we are satisfied the Northern Triangle governments are taking concrete actions to reduce the number of illegal migrants coming to the U.S. border.”

Opinion

Jack Posobiec said, in one word, how this should make us all feel.

But, of course, I have a few more words than that. I’ve always acknowledged the border crisis must be handled on multiple fronts as past presidents have tried to strengthen security. But Trump is the first to try to force nations at the sources of the problem to get fixed. First, he negotiated with Mexico to do their part. Now, he’s asking the same from the Northern Triangle nations to do the same.

If the people have no reason to leave, they won’t. But as long as they are made to feel they need to come to America to have a normal life, they’ll continue to try to do so. It’s good that not all aid is being held back, as much of it is used to benefit us. But the threat of no new aid is big as all three nations rely on the United States to operate their own governments.

Quote

I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment…

Final Thoughts

It behooves these countries to do what they can to retain their citizens. With as much as 1/3rd of their populations claiming to want to come to America, these countries must do more to help themselves.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending