Academic literature on the topic 'Jamal Khashoggi'

The murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Turkey is still controversial. The judgment relies on valid and reliable evidence. This study is vital due to investigating a murder case based on pragmatic meanings as language evidence broadcasted in media. This research employs Grice’s conversational implicature to investigate the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by analyzing the exposed recorded tapes of Jamal Khashoggi and the accused inside the consulate, the utterances of Khadija Changiz, the fiancée of Jamal Khashoggi, and Adel al Jubeir’s statements, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia as a representative of the Saudi Arabian. The design of this research is a case study, and content analysis is used to analyze the data based on Mayring’s (2000) qualitative content analysis. Based on the findings of the study, the recorded tapes of Jamal Khashoggi and the accused are outlined as ambiguous language. Saudi Arabia denied the murder by saving face, misleading the hearer, and skipping the questions, but later on, affirmed the murder and promised to bring justice. Hence, the results of this study will affect the verdict on the judicial decree, and the accusations will be prosecuted, and justice will be served to Jamal Khashoggi.

Abstract This paper deals with a case study that provides unique and original insight into social media credibility attacks against the Saudi journalist and activist, Jamal Khashoggi. To get the data, I searched all the state-run tweets sent by Arab trolls (78,274,588 in total), and I used Cedar, Canada’s supercomputer, to extract all the videos and images associated with references to Khashoggi. In addition, I searched Twitter’s full data archive to cross-examine some of the hashtag campaigns that were launched the day Khashoggi disappeared and afterwards. Finally, I used CrowdTangle to understand whether some of these hashtags were also used on Facebook and Instagram. I present here evidence that just a few hours after Khashoggi’s disappearance in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Saudi trolls started a coordinated disinformation campaign against him to frame him as a terrorist, foreign agent for Qatar and Turkey, liar.... etc. The trolls also emphasized that the whole story of his disappearance and killing is a fabrication or a staged play orchestrated by Turkey and Qatar. The campaign also targeted his fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, alleging she was a spy, while later they cast doubt about her claims. Some of these campaigns were launched a few months after Khashoggi’s death. Theoretically, I argue that state-run disinformation campaigns need to incorporate the dimension of intended effect. In this case study, the goal is to tarnish the reputation and credibility of Khashoggi, even after he died, in an attempt to discredit his claims and political cause, influence different audiences especially the Saudi public, and potentially reduce sympathy towards him.

Jamal Khashoggi is known for his very sharp critics to Saudi Arabian Governments. He was murdered at the Consulate facility of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul- Turkey. The case has become a concern of international society, put the questions of freedom of expression and press as well the security of journalist. This article is a normative legal research that is aimed to analyze the international human rights law’s protection to the journalist's activities and to discuss the case of Khashoggi, specifically on the issue which authorities that have obligations to impose legal sanctions to the alleged perpetrators. The research suggests that there have been international human rights norms and principles that protect journalist activities. In addition, it suggests that Turkey has jurisdiction to launch an investigation and prosecute the perpetrators who involve in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

A critical perspective of Jamal Khashoggi towards the Saudi Arabia policy is part of the free expression which Khashoggi expected can be implemented in his homeland Saudi. The dispute in defining a narration between the Saudi government and Khashoggi toward to some policy Saudi took caused of his departure to Washington DC and started to voice his critics and opinions by writing articles in Washington Post from 2017 until 2018. The issues which he touched on were about free expression, the Yemen war, corruption, and Ikhwanul Muslimin. This paper attempts to understand the problem Saudi faces which he wants to criticize on Saudi moves whether it is a domestic or foreign policy through qualitative narrative. This paper attempts to answer what are the big issues Khashoggi tries to deliver in the Washington Post articles he wrote. It can be found there are many detailed issues which Khashoggi has a different opinion to what Saudi has done under MBS. The reform that Saudi promise only applied to infrastructure. Ironically it is not followed by reform in free expression, free speech, and political rights for Saudi citizens as equality before the law.

Abstract On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident Saudi journalist residing in the United States of America, where he was a columnist for the Washington Post newspaper, was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. This article analyses Khashoggi’s killing from the standpoint of the human right to life. It examines not only the obligation of Saudi Arabia to respect Khashoggi’s right to life, but also the obligations of Turkey and the United States to protect Khashoggi’s right to life from third parties, and to ensure respect through an effective investigation of his killing and mutual cooperation for the purpose of that investigation. It also looks at the extraterritorial scope of these various obligations. Finally, the article examines possible norm conflicts between state obligations under human rights law and their obligations under diplomatic and consular law, such as the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises, agents and means of transportation.

Evidences show that Saudi agents killed prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate on October 2, 2018. As the Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman was blamed for the murder, Arab News newspaper took a defensive position to defend the crown prince and the Saudi regime through news reports and columns. This study has analyzed 36 articles of ten columnists of Arab News to learn how Saudi journalists defended their regime and the Saudi officials charged for the murder. This research indicates that they received the concerning statements of the Saudi regime as true and tried to justify them in their columns. On the other hand, columnists blamed Turkey, Qatar, and other critics for clamping down Saudi Arabia. When columnists’ attitudes are examined, it can be seen that they look furious, closed to opposite views, and biased. Their columns also give some idea about the press freedom in Saudi Arabia. This study is expected to reveal how media operates in Saudi Arabia via the content analysis of columns of Arab News regarding Khashoggi’s murder.

This paper attempts to evaluate Al-Jazeera Arabic Channel talk shows’ treatment of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s case by posing two main questions: the first deals with the amount of coverage granted to this issue. One of the research hypotheses arises here, namely that the coverage was remarkably intense, which may be explained by Al-Jazeera’s dedicated position on the issue. This is explored in this paper through analysis of content and by interviewing the director of news at Al-Jazeera channel, Asif al-Humaidi, and by surveying previous studies that have linked Al-Jazeera’s previous positions to Qatar’s official stand, particularly that the Khashoggi incident took place in the midst of the Qatari-Saudi political crisis. The research samples include four talk shows: “Without Borders,” “Beyond the News,” “Rest of the Story” and “Scenarios,” over the course of a month since Khashoggi’s disappearance. The analysis shows that Khashoggi’s case received 93% of the total coverage of the four programs during the monitoring period. The second question deals with several items in the professionalism category, in terms of balancing time granted to the guests, and the degree of objectivity shown by the presenters during the dialogue. It was found that the rate of the presenters’ interventions during guests’ presentation was 57%, in addition to temptations utilized during the dialogues. Another question arises regarding the extent of hate speech in these talk shows, which amounts to 69.4%, by analyzing several items, most notably emotional mobilization, which rated 40.7%.

Abstract:This study aims to identify the effect of unexpected political-events on Saudi stock market returns based on the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) assumptions.� The disappearance of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey is the political event has been determined in this study.� The data collected from ten companies traded in the Saudi stock market which accounted for more than 62 percent of the total market capitalization. However, this paper applied the Event Study Methodology. The results showed that the Saudi stock market initially reacted to the event and tried to absorb the information received but could not correct itself in most of the window event period. It seems that the market did not get the relevant news quickly or clearly. So, the information that flow among traders was not readily available for the investors at the same level and time. Ultimately, the Saudi stock market is described as a weak-form market (inefficient).Keywords: Unanticipated political events, the stock market, expected returns, abnormal returns, cumulative returns, event study methodologyAbstract: This study aims to identify the effect of unexpected political-events on Saudi stock market returns based on the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) assumptions.� The disappearance of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey is the political event has been determined in this study.� The data collected from ten companies traded in the Saudi stock market which accounted for more than 62 percent of the total market capitalization. However, this paper applied the Event Study Methodology. The results showed that the Saudi stock market initially reacted to the event and tried to absorb the information received but could not correct itself in most of the window event period. It seems that the market did not get the relevant news quickly or clearly. So, the information that flow among traders was not readily available for the investors at the same level and time. Ultimately, the Saudi stock market is described as a weak-form market (inefficient).Keywords: Unanticipated political events, the stock market, expected returns, abnormal returns, cumulative returns, event study methodology.

TIME magazine selected “The Guardians and the War on Truth” as their 2018 “Person of the Year.” Journalists everywhere urge us to remember writer Jamal Khashoggi’s murder as a harsh testament to the risks of speaking truth to power. But Khashoggi was a perceived threat to a totalitarian government, surely truth is more respected in America, right? Suggest that to the Columbia University School of Law who built a “silencing science tracker” to document “government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion.” In this editorial, I argue that researchers who publish their scientific findings in peer-reviewed journals must also embrace the role of “guardians” against the growing assaults on science. In an era where the majority of Americans get their health information via social media, our challenge as scientists is to transcend our basic calling as truth seekers and truth tellers. Closely aligned with this truth guardian’s work in health promotion is the True Health Initiative, a cohort of renowned scientists dedicated to offering “clarity over confusion”; they “work to spread the fundamental evidence and consensus-based truths about lifestyle as medicine.” When purveyors of falsehoods have such unfettered channels as they do today, my hope for scientists and for this journal is that we grow our ambitions relating to curating facts, authoritative dissemination, and persuasive communications alongside our usual work of learning and teaching.

The present study explicates the nature of the lexicogrammatical choices made in journalistic discourse about the death of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The case is internationally represented in the mostly circulated newspapers. The online versions of the four newspapers Arab News (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), Hürreyat Daily News (Turkey), New York Times (United States of America) and Tehran Times (Iran) are selected for the study. Proceeding within the framework of the transitivity system, the paper intends to expound how the four newspapers express the stances and viewpoints about the case. The analysis positions the newspapers writing technique within an ideological bifurcation of the legitimized US and the delegitimized THEM. The use of the transitivity system as an approach for analysis of the headlines unveils how journalists’ attitudes steer readers toward the opinions preferred by the national policies of their countries.

Foreign direct investment (herein referred to as FDI) has been viewed through time as one of the core drivers of economic growth. Regardless of their ideological variances, many countries throughout the world today aim to increase the level of competition in order to attract FDI. This study focuses on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an oil rich nation that has until now, predominantly relied on its revenue stream derived from its natural resources. However, now the Kingdom must adapt and respond appropriately to the challenges of global competition, which have consequently forced the government to invest in non-oil sectors. As a result, the Saudi government has encouraged foreign companies to invest in the nation, through its Economic Vision 2030 initiative. However, against a backdrop of declining foreign direct investment (FDI) in recent years and associated factors related to the political, business and economic environment, Saudi Arabia may find it extremely difficult to successfully implement its Economic Vision 2030 without appropriate solutions and adequate planning processes to combat these obstacles to economic growth and revenue diversification. It is therefore necessary to identify the major causes of this declining trend of FDI and implement appropriate methods to improve FDI inflows in order to meet Vision 2030’s specified objectives. In this regard, the study had two main concerns. Firstly, to investigate whether Saudi Arabia’s business environment is conducive to attract FDI, particularly in non-oil sectors. Secondly, to examine the factors that determine the motivation of foreign companies to invest in Saudi Arabia. A mixed method approach of surveying top executives of foreign firms and interviewing top managers of the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA) was adopted as the research strategy. The quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and frequency estimations (Shapiro-Wilk test). For thematic analysis of qualitative data on interviews, the method of Braun and Clark (2006) was used. The key findings are summarised as follows. The main problems of FDI in Saudi Arabia are associated with a decline in the efficiency of financial markets and credit growth, increasing interest rates, restrictive labour laws, slow pace of facilitation steps of FDI, stagnant investment climate, imbalances of crucial natural resources and insufficient guarantees and policies. The Vision 2030 contains a comprehensive plan for a large-scale skills enhancement programme to solve this problem; however, this will undoubtedly take time. Until then, the effect of skills shortage linked to the ‘Saudisation’ of FDI will continue. More than 10,000 foreign firms have closed because of this problem. The negative message sent by these companies may adversely affect the image of Saudi Arabia and thus negatively affect any future FDI inflows. The range of natural resources is very narrow, and hence, costs are high. Notably, lack of quality and consistency are important FDI deterrents. The geographic location of Saudi Arabia gives it a strong strategic advantage. However, negative factors mentioned earlier may counter this advantage compared with other strategically located countries equipped with better services. Market liberalisation in Saudi Arabia is imperfect. Currently, the country is focusing on attracting FDI from selected countries in selected sectors. But with existing limited capabilities, market liberalisation may have limited impact in increasing FDI in Saudi Arabia. Ruled by a monarchy, Saudi Arabia does not have any significant political instability. It can be considered as a stable nation. Rather, Saudi Arabia has a negative image due to gender discrimination. Lack of consistency in business regulations in dealing with the government, bureaucracy, cronyism (Wasta), poor enforcement by the legal and judicial systems and the potential effects of religion and culture have also been identified as FDI- negative factors. Progressive easing of laws and policies not conducive to FDI have been implemented since 2000 but have not been effective. SAGIA has limitations regarding simplification of approval procedures thus making it difficult for FDI seeking firms. Only limited success has been achieved by the Crown Prince and SAGIA in attracting FDI into Vision 2030 projects, primarily because of lack of support from other departments. Global investment forums are not specific to Saudi Arabia; many countries conduct similar conventions to attract FDI. Although policies are being evaluated, actual change has not occurred, even after two years of Vision 2030. Administrative weakness is a barrier to the FDI targeted in the Vision. In addition, Islamic laws are a deterrent to outsiders; at least for foreign investors, personal and religious independence need to be guaranteed to improve FDI outcomes. The findings from the study make a major contribution not only to existing knowledge but also adds to new knowledge highlighting the main problems, barriers, and obstacles of FDI inflows in Saudi Arabia. The study’s findings will also benefit both the SAGIA and foreign firms looking to invest in Saudi Arabia. The study concludes with several recommendations and future research directions.

This chapter discusses the events surrounding and leading up to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by operatives of the Saudi regime in the country’s consulate in Istanbul. It explains the killing of Khashoggi—an insider who knew too much—as a function of the new repression in Saudi Arabia. The chapter examines Khashoggi’s transformation from a regime propagandist to a persona non grata, explaining this change with reference to the abrupt rise of Crown Prince Muhammad ibn Salman and the shift in Saudi politics that it brought about.

In response to the recent local and regional uprisings (such as the 2009 Green Movement in Iran, Arab uprisings of 2011, and the 2013 Gezi Protests in Turkey), Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries have refashioned 'established' authoritarian practices (such as repressive laws, imprisonment of dissidents and extra-judicial killings) and added new authoritarian practices (such as internet and spyware surveillance) to stifle dissent, neutralize opponents and prevent social mobilization. The chapter shows that MENA regimes are using a mix of historically-established practices and new authoritarian practices in conjunction with one another to form what Topak (2019; 2022) calls an "authoritarian assemblage". A case in point is the brutal murder of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi where Pegasus spyware surveillance is combined with extra-judicial killing. This introductory chapter draws on this and other cases from the book which involves analysis of seventeen MENA countries. Sub-headings of the chapter includes: Established Authoritarian Practices; Protests and Policing; Legalizing Authoritarian Practices; Digital Surveillance; Authoritarian Learning and Alliances; Gender and the Double-authoritarian Burden; Resistance.

Since 2017, Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MbS) has moved to consolidate absolute power in Saudi Arabia, dismantling a system of princely consensus that had defined Al Saud authoritarianism since the assassination of King Faisal in 1975. With a firm grip on the intelligence and security services, MbS has done away with previous norms that allowed some space for dissent in elite circles while heavily repressing most Saudis. The new de-facto leader exhibits acute intolerance of any form of dissent, justified as a necessity for his plans for dramatic social transformation and economic diversification. With this, a series of high-profile cases of domestic and international repression have drawn global attention to the kingdom, not least the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, the targeting of activists with spyware in Canada and Europe, and the mobilizing of Twitter botnets to create the illusion of popular regime support. Common to these activities is a range of new technological tools and strategies deployed to monitor, target, and deter political dissent. This chapter surveys these new authoritarian practices in Saudi Arabia, contextualizing the micro-practices of repression in a historical framework and through a theoretical lens of civil society depoliticization.