This is on my, or better stated my view on matters. In this case it is the Reuters article ‘Exclusive: Kushner has discussed U.S.-Saudi diplomacy with Saudi crown prince’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/kushner-has-discussed-us-saudi-diplomacy-with-saudi-crown-prince-2024-10-04/) which was released less than 30 minutes ago. I have had serious doubt on the media on a near global stage and at this moment Reuters has gained several points towards doubt. Yet, in this case I am willing to put doubt on my ability to see things clearly.
So, lets take a look.
“The news that Kushner and Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader discussed a peace accord”, here we see the statement “de-facto leader”, we know that Saudi Arabia still has a king, but what stops Reuters to state “The news that Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud discussed a peace accord”, both are in principle correct. Yet the Reuters statement comes across as Saudi bashing. ‘To put a person in its place’ might be the interpretation as many would see it, especially in the Middle East. Then we get “renew questions about whether Kushner’s financial ties with Riyadh could influence U.S. policy under his father-in-law”, so what is the issue here? It is a serious question because the article does not give us a complete report on what those ties are, we get a link to the Hill, there we see ““crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House” my question in this is were laws broken? You see, the investment was done AFTER he left the White House. So were laws broken, or were they not.
Then we get “To encourage Saudi Arabia to recognise Israel, the Biden administration has offered Riyadh security guarantees, assistance with a civilian nuclear program and a renewed push for a Palestinian state. The deal could reshape the Middle East by uniting two long-time foes and binding the world’s biggest oil exporter to Washington at a time when China is making inroads in the region” How come that China is diminished with “when China is making inroads in the region” and what is this about “assistance with a civilian nuclear program”. My issue is that China has been making inroads for the better part of two years. As such making inroads, comes across as a joke, massively inaccurate. So why was the civilian nuclear program added? Could be true, could be anything. But the media at present has a massive credibility issue and whilst space on a webpage is nearly free, Reuters is a little stingy on using it.
Last we get to “The Saudi relationship with Trump was notably close. Trump’s first foreign trip as president in 2017 was to Riyadh, accompanied by Kushner. After Saudi expatriate opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump stood by the crown prince in spite of a U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing. MbS denied involvement.” Is filled with inaccuracies. No clear evidence has been produced that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, there was an assumption and the setting that “U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing” is even more inaccurate. The document A/HRC/41/CRP.1 which was given to the world by the Human Rights Council does not give us that either. In that report U.S. Intelligence is mentioned twice. In one case we are given “The Directive states that if a U.S. intelligence agency “acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping,” that agency has a duty to warn the intended victim.” No mention of authorisation or anything regarding an order by Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. I am adding that document at the bottom. As such I have issues with the Reuters article.
There is more but read the article yourself. The article hands us a pice of evidence that Reuters is losing credibility.
I am not a Trump fan, but at present there is a larger stage and the Biden administration of fumbling the ball, and as issues go at present, China will be a large bigger inroad in the Middle East (Saud Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) in 2025 and I have to wonder how much inroad they will make in Egypt in 2025.
But I hope that the message comes across. And in the second stage, what laws did Kushner break? Because in the end that is what matters.
Have a great day
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 