It is impossible for it not to be discussed. Trump’s “America first” declaration, which he made exactly in this context, refers to an America that was slaughtered and defeated with his efforts. Because even though we recognize the U.S. with its imperialist side and the unrest, oppression, exploitation and death it spreads globally, the American people naturally identify their own nation with the values that keep their state standing, and want to keep identifying it that way.
Regardless of pragmatics, the notion that in international relations, murders, massacres or all mistakes of dictators can be covered up by the U.S. in exchange for a price is not easy for American citizens to accept.
Frankly, regardless of what it does in practice, this constitutes the collapse of all theoretic legends the U.S. has told its own citizens until now. The murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi may actually be nothing other than an ordinary example of the network of relations or all the actions in which the U.S. plays a similar role.
The Khashoggi case is nothing more than just one of the thousands or perhaps millions of murders committed in the past and present by numerous regimes openly supported by the U.S. However, what makes the case noteworthy is the way Khashoggi was killed and that his murder exposed the mask that covered, masked or glamorized all the murders committed to date.
In fact, it is not like there were no efforts to portray even this murder as legitimate and acceptable. Trump reported that Crown Prince Salman told him Khashoggi was a dangerous Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood supporter. What could be the purpose behind squeezing in this piece of information by also adding that what Salman told him was likely a lie?
This is clearly typical discourse that aims to present the systematic human rights violations Crown Princes Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed have unfortunately been involved in recently and their brutal war against democracy as acceptable to the West. If a person is an Islamist, and especially pro-Muslim Brotherhood, then they certainly deserve to die this way. This says there is more than enough of a reason not to care about the sensitivity the world has demonstrated regarding the Khashoggi murder.
Even this alone elucidates very well how the inhumane, despotic, and guilty regimes imposed in the Middle East by these teams are portrayed to the American public as just and legitimate.
The Khashoggi murder begs the question: Who could be more dangerous than the regimes that are supported in the Middle East by the U.S.? The actors supposedly protecting the American people from perils slaughtered a journalist with saws in their hands in their state building in broad daylight. They are committing crimes against humanity by eradicating their opponents in the most ruthless, violent and inhumane manner. What could be worse than the danger these villainous friends pose to humanity?
Is it thought that this question will not be asked? This is the question the Khashoggi case is causing both the American people and the entire world to ask today, and we can expect changes to take place in the U.S. the more this question is asked. Of course, we should not hope for too much regarding the likely direction and expanse of change.
Of course, the human memory is forgetful and flawed, and unfortunately, Khashoggi’s murderers, as well as U.S. politicians like Trump who are ready to turn a blind eye to their crimes in exchange for a small bribe, rely on this aspect of the human memory. They trust that everything will be forgotten in time, and that a while later nobody will remember Khashoggi, the brutality of the murder or the crime against humanity that was committed, and they are hence trying to kill time.
Nonetheless, it should be known that the opposition of the American public and institutions against Trump with respect to this incident is pressing to prevent this incident from being overlooked, and this pressure can change many things. Being insulted in such a way by its own president may cause the CIA to become attached to its position regarding the case with greater passion. This could lead to a very different result.
At least, the question of why Trump is obliged to Crown Prince Salman – as he reduces Saudi Arabia to Salman – will be asked seriously. Saudi-U.S. relations have progressed in this manner for seven decades. It is said that relations did not start with Salman, so why should ties be dependent on unconditionally tolerating him, even in the face of such a scandal.
Those who believe this can convince Trump that Saudi Arabia-U.S. relations can endure along the same course with those who can serve as an alternative to Salman.
Is this really the case? This is the discussion we will be following with interest in the following days.