It is disappointing to see such a decline in moral standards. There is a small subset of people who commit heinous crimes across all societies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Worst offenders are actually the Central American countries.

Worst offenders are actually the Central American countries. — Devans99

At the risk of being picky, murder is bad enough. My point is that the arabs, in murdering their guest, in a sense murdered themselves.

It is clear that the arabs - and given who they are, are until repudiated representative of all arabs - have betrayed themselves in the betrayal of their own customs. — tim wood

This is not about the "Arabs", it's about the Saudi Arabian government. Just as criticism of Israel is not about the "Jews", it's about the Israeli government. Blaming "Arabs" for something that was likely directed by the leadership of one (of many) Arab states and drawing conclusions of hypocrisy with respect to their customs on that basis is a very unfair generalization. It's about as sensible as blaming Irish people for something the Welsh government did because we're all Celts.

It is clear that the arabs - and given who they are, are until repudiated representative of all arabs - — tim wood

What? Nice fallacy of association there. Is there anything in your post to discuss or are you just venting?

I disagree. I have not blamed, merely presented that when a person or entity that represents a community betrays that community, the community itself, willy-nilly, is burdened and remains burdened until and unless it finds a way to throw off that burden.

Lots of communities have such burdens imposed. In the US, for example, of historic slavery and current racism. It becomes incumbent on us in the US and me individually and as much as possible and as soon as possible to repudiate and eliminate racism and substantively and finally address the historic issues of slavery. Germans labor with Nazism, with some success, in their passage of certain laws and certain efforts at retributive and rehabilitative justice.

I am well-persuaded that most middle-easterners take their respective cultural practices personally and seriously. I merely point out that the cultural betrayal is real, and substantive. As such, no fallacy at all!

Alright, Tim, I'm no SJW or PC-Police and yet this still reads to me as a quintessential expression of the sort of profoundly dehumanizing racism one experiences regularly when one happens to be so unfortunate. I don't want to exchange angry charges of racism and 'you're misinterpreting me!', etc. but just want to tell you how this reads to someone with my personal experiences:

I have not blamed, merely presented — tim wood

No, you have associated Arabs with murderers. This is not morally free-standing, neutral rhetoric. Not knowing your "identity" or the one foisted on you, all I can say is you won't get this unless you're called everyday to justify, account for, or apologize for "belonging" to a group associated with some heinous activities. It's like...

that represents a community — tim wood

...associating black American with rapists and murderers then asking them to begin speaking out on behalf of the "community" which those bad apples represent. Who the heck are you to say this constitutes a "community" and that these guys "represent" that community? The claim itself is a racist maneuver, as is the sense that you get to calmly and logically decide what murderers I am and am not associated with on the basis of my "race". At the very least it represents a sort of racial insensitivity, an incapacity to understand the burden of having strong negative associations foisted on you by every stranger you meet for reasons of race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

the community itself, willy-nilly, is burdened and remains burdened until and unless it finds a way to throw off that burden. — tim wood

Well, yeah, because you're throwing racist claims out there that artificially prop up the notion that there's a community burdened by moral complicity with heinous crimes where no such community exists. Throwing off that burden will mean fighting racism, especially fighting the sort of surreptitious racism you're engaging in here.

Lots of communities have such burdens imposed. In the US, for example, of historic slavery and current racism. It becomes incumbent on us in the US and me individually and as much as possible and as soon as possible to repudiate and eliminate racism and substantively and finally address the historic issues of slavery. Germans labor with Nazism, with some success, in their passage of certain laws and certain efforts at retributive and rehabilitative justice. — tim wood

Yeah, but that's not what we're talking about here. What you're doing is the equivalent of associating Japanese-Americans with Pearl Harbor. When we concern ourselves with slavery we're not making blanket statements about race but rather about the nature and history of a practice, its moral ramifications in the present, and how to overcome the moral advantages and burdens that this has unfairly distributed to certain citizens.

You're not asking "What is it about the political practices in Saudi Arabia that enabled this tragedy to happen?" but calling on anyone associated with Arabs ethnically or religiously to assume responsibility for a particular government's brazen act of cruelty.

I am well-persuaded that most middle-easterners take their respective cultural practices personally and seriously. — tim wood

Quite the courtesy. (Again, the experience of racism: This reads as deeply condescending, and not in the sort of way that can be diffused by appeal to your "intentions".)

That Jamal Khashoggi was a "guest" in the Arab embassy makes little difference to me. What is appalling is the Saudi's willingness to silence a critic with murder and dismemberment. That the Saudi thugs arrived with knives and saws underscores the premeditation of murder. Murder to silence a critic; not a revolutionary or terrorist: a critic.

I have read reports that allowing Saudis to attend cinema or allowing women to drive cars is window-dressing. It's strategic window-dressing: just enough to make it appear that reform is happening. In actuality, the Saudi royal thuggery rigidly suppress any criticism of the regime. This isn't new.

Trump is worried that if we criticize the Saudi too severely, they will take their military purchases elsewhere. They probably would react that way. It isn't as if there aren't any other military manufacturers at the world arms bazaar. Personally, I think we're far to involved in the world arms trade as it is. And if Trump is worried about arms sales, I'm sure Iran could have taken up some of the slack if the Grand Asshole of Washington hadn't scuttled the nuclear weapons deal with Iran.

What's even worse was their bombing of a bus full of Yemeni school children (with American bombs). Odd that no-one gave a shit about that. But whatever gets people to wake up to the hideousness of this regime, I'm all for. And yes, this "Arab guest" angle is a perverse way to approach the issue @tim wood. This has nothing to do with Arab culture and nothing to do with being Arabic in general. It was (or at least the evidence strongly points to it being) a purely political act not beyond any brutal regime regardless of origin.

No, you have associated Arabs with murderers. — John Doe

but calling on anyone associated with Arabs ethnically or religiously to assume responsibility for a particular government's brazen act of cruelty. — tim wood

I appreciate the engagement. And I'll own the error, if I've made one. I have not associated anyone with murder as murder. Murder as murder is a crime within (most) systems of justice. That is, the crime is a reflection upon the person who committed it. And the system of justice is presumably robust enough to dispose of it. So far as I know, murder is a crime everywhere, and, no reflection on the community in which it occurs, although it may well say something about the community in which it occurs.

What I am about is the betrayal of culture through the betrayal of the guest status through the murder of the guest. This is by no means to suggest that Arabs collectively committed this crime; on the contrary, the crime stands in vivid and stark contrast to what I believe are norms of civility in that culture. As such, to my way of thinking, it is notorious enough to call out some response from Arabs "in general," if there is such a thing.

In a way, this particular murder - and I'm assuming it's occurred as reported - beyond it's being a murder, is also a kind of treason in that it is an attack on a famous cultural norm, one that I would say calls out the best in people even those not a part of the culture, as with the French captain, above. But treason betrays itself. Treason is understood to stand outside of and apart from the culture. That is, treason itself is relatively straightforward, relatively simple. This crime in question exploits and betrays that which is valuable. As such, all are involved. Just as in any culture that is similarly afflicted, all are in consequence afflicted. A further example is the South African truth counsels as a response to abuses of apartheid.

This isn't unique to the arab community. I only point it out as a crime involving such dimension that a whole community is brought into play. More concretely, any arab might say, just as I might say in my community, that a murder as murder is of minimal concern to me personally, and I suppose the police can and will handle it (as I cannot). But this cultural aspect I'd expect every arab to feel more-or-less deeply as an attack on the community and its values, as I would in mine on different issues.

By "arab" I mean middle-easterners who abide, identify with, and accept as part of their cultural heritage what I call guest privilege, which I'm thinking is nearly all of them (if not, please educate).

We all have these burdens; most of us try to deal with them in constructive ways. This particular case seems an arab's burden.

This particular case seems an arab's burden. — tim wood

It's not because that implies (despite your protestations to the contrary) that Arabs in general are in some way responsible for the murder, which is absurd. Besides which, Arabs are not even one community in any sense except under a rather arbitrary geographical designation with some cultural commonalities. Like Europeans. So, are all Europeans tainted when the head of one European country orders a murder? Is that my burden being a European? Answer=no.

It's not because that implies (despite your protestations to the contrary) that Arabs in general are in some way responsible for the murder, which is absurd. — Baden

You're missing it. It's the cultural aspect, which, under the circumstances of the murder, give it its significance, not the murder itself.

Too bad @Mr Phil O'Sophy left the forum. I would be keenly interested in his input.

no-one gave a shit about that — Baden

Whether one expresses a high give-a-shit rating or not depends on the opportunity--a place and a time. Khashoggi is getting "official outrage" so that creates a bigger space for others to express their feelings. I'm pretty sure that firing on a bus of people (children, men, women, whoever) appalled a lot of people. The children were, for sure, not shooting at anybody. The whole Yemeni thing strikes me as appalling (but I don't know much about it). I don't know why there wasn't more "official outrage" about the children on the bus.

I'm sure hospitality is part of the American culture as well. — Πετροκότσυφας

I'll accept correction on my ideas about middle-eastern hospitality. I believe that for those cultures a guest is accorded a special status that does not exist in the west. One expression of it is that the host is obliged to protect the guest - the guest is safe from the host while a guest, even if the host has bad intentions.

That is, e.g., in the US there are friends, enemies, and strangers. In the middle-east, friends, enemies, I'm not sure about strangers, and guests.

I'm just curious. The Arabs are a large group and it is my understanding that there are various Arab groups with their own cultural norms and histories. Are you saying that all Arab groups had this custom regarding guests or just one such group or a small number of them?

1. Stop equivocating between "Arab" and "Middle-Eastern". — Πετροκότσυφας

Not all middle-easterners are Arabs. Not all Arabs are middle-easterners. Nevertheless, use of the terms interchangeably is, can be, justified. My purpose was to associate what I call their guest status with both region and people. I note online that "Arab" is apparently not-so-easy to define.

2. Clarify what "Middle-Eastern" means. Whom this category includes and why. — Πετροκότσυφας

Middle-eastern, in my usage, includes anyone whose home is in the middle-east and all those people not in the middle-east whose heritage/culture is middle-eastern or whose origin is from the middle-east. Excepted, in my usage, are folks born "accidentally" in the middle-east, such as the children of diplomats or business people whose homes and cultures are neither in nor of the middle-east.

3. Back up your ideas on "Middle-Eastern" hospitality. — Πετροκότσυφας

From arabacademy.com: Hospitality, friendliness, and generosity to strangers is an expression of sacred duties.

From: http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/196502/manners.in.the.middle.east.htm, and much more at this site.

"In the desert, hospitality has been commonly understood to extend for three full days. Being under a man's roof also means, being in their protection. Among the famous incidents in Arab folklore is that of a man who took refuge, unwittingly, in the tent of a shaikh whose son he had just killed. Even under these circumstances the sacred law of protection was observed. Not until three days had passed, at which time the guest was obliged by custom to depart, was the tribe free to go in pursuit and avenge the shaikh's dead son.

The law of protection works both ways. Should a man stop by a certain tribe as its guest, a bond of "bread and salt" is created between them and he becomes honor-bound to offer protection to his host at a later date. Similarly, if a man returns your greeting assalamu 'alaykum ("peace be upon you") with the reply wa 'alaykum as-salam ("and on you be peace"), it is equivalent to sealing a peace-pact with him; it is as if he had eaten bread and salt or drunk coffee with you: you can count on his protection, and he on yours."

This tradition, with variations, apparently extends from at least Morocco to Afghanistan.

4. Clarify why the journalist counts as a guest in this way and why this incident should be judged on these grounds and not on purely political grounds. — Πετροκότσυφας

Two points. First, on being accepted in he is a guest. Second, "why this incident should be judged on these grounds and not on purely political grounds": is it your suggestion that this "incident" should be judged on purely political grounds? If yes, we can part company. If it is to be "judged on purely political grounds," then clearly, on political grounds, you can justify this murder, or any murder, or anything at all.

5. Clarify why the burden falls on all "Arabs" or "Middle-Easterners". — Πετροκότσυφας

A burden. I don't know what the burden is. My understanding is that folks in the middle-east take some cultural practices seriously in ways that most of the rest of us don't. That is, they follow some rules. Among them are rules concerning guests. Viz, if you want to kill a man, it's very bad form to do it while he's your guest. Such a rule, coming into being in such a place, seems reasonably plausible. Having seen it referred to at different times and in different places, I don't question it; I assume the accounts I see are more-or-less accurate.

Following rules, aside from practical benefits, usually is a form of affirming membership. Adherence to guest privilege joins peoples. It says something about us. Implicitly, along as it says something about us, then in that sense you are one of us. Betray it, and you have betrayed us. That is, you have said something about us that should not have been said. In a sense, you have used my voice without my permission for something that custom, to which I adhere, forbids. I am going to make a pure guess and suppose that a greater percentage of Arab/middle-easterners are outraged by this, than Westerners are outraged by the actions of Trump. This burden - I call it a burden - puts these people in an unwelcome position: their custom and tradition is abused, and usually silence consents. Those who do not consent are burdened with setting their cultural record straight. Whether in those societies they have the liberty to speak out, is much in question.

I think the title of this thread is unfortunate, but wanted to make a comment on the story at its centre. This morning's news is that Trump has deployed his familiar 'lets muddy the waters' technique - 'anyone could have done it'! (Maybe even Hillary supporters! Who knows!) Trump spoke to the King, and then suggested that 'rogue killers' were behind it; the Saudi royal family seems to be lining up a 'senior intelligence official' to blame, so as to shield the Crown Prince from accusation. A career intelligence bureaucrat is executed by firing squad, face is saved, the US arms deal is saved - God knows that billions of dollars are worth more than any mere life - and we can all resume normal programming.

This may well be the accurate summary. "Rogue killers." Of course the Saudi government has neither control nor knowledge of what happens in their consulates. And therefore we'll sell them weapons. Irony even gags to think of it.

I don't know for sure -- so why am I bothering to respond then, one might ask? Just to say that it is my impression that hospitality has been part of the general semitic cultural norm for a long time. (Semitic includes both Arabs and Jews). Remember, part of the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah (gay slogan: Sodom today, Gomorrah the world) was a lack of hospitality.

"Middle-Eastern" is even harder to define, so, equivocation just makes it worse, I'd say. — Πετροκότσυφας

Let me unequivocate it, then. I mean to refer to those people, wherever found, that count themselves as culturally middle-eastern, in that they value, observe, practice certain customs in distinctive ways.

If I think people should act a certain way under certain conditions and circumstances, and the head, leader, ruler, boss, president, whatever, directly and personally or indirectly and through some agency devalues that belief, then I have a problem - actually several problems, which is not to say that I can obtain satisfaction with respect to any of them.

That does not explain the term, I'm afraid. What counts as the "Middle-East"? — Πετροκότσυφας

It's geography you want? Anywhere you would not be terribly surprised to see a camel. Not including the camel cage at the zoo.

First, on being accepted in he is a guest.
— tim wood
What does this even mean? — Πετροκότσυφας

It means he went in, and in being accepted in, he became a guest. That's what I mean.

If these are your political grounds, then I guess that we can indeed part ways. International law and criminal law, fortunately, are more efficient than age-old customs which survive in very different forms today. — Πετροκότσυφας

Actually, your political grounds, not mine. As to international law and criminal law, neither of those are the topic. Saudi and Turkish law and international pubic opinion appear to be at work here. And if it were Saudi law alone, well I guess it's whatever they say it is, whenever they feel like saying it. And if they don't say, just watch what they do. As to "age-old customs," they often are a repository of collected and collective wisdom representing hard-earned and hard-won knowledge of what's best. Whether it translates into modern culture is an open question, but that such values are in many cases held is intrinsically a modern - current - phenomenon.

5. Clarify why the burden falls on all "Arabs" or "Middle-Easterners". — Πετροκότσυφας

Nah, no answer to my question here. — Πετροκότσυφας

Actually, it was, It just wasn't the question that you wanted to answer, that wasn't asked.

Now it's about time you addressed the substance of this thread - if you're able - and stop beating straw men. The substance, in a phrase, is that when cultural norms are grossly and egregiously violated, it becomes a problem for the culture. Start with that. Do you have anything to say?

Sure. No one in his right mind, middle-eastern or otherwise, treats what happened based on the custom of hospitality. The reasons should be obvious to anyone who's not living under a rock or to anyone who's not trying to express his disgust for arabs while hiding behind pretentious nonsense. — Πετροκότσυφας

Thank you! (For clarity.) Do I understand you to mean that folks, in this context middle-easterners (as a generalization, subject to refinement), do not ring the changes on cultural/religious/tribal/national significances, such as they can either adduce them or dream them up, in moments of crisis? Because it seems to me that is exactly what they do as standard, default form.

And I am not basing anything on anything. To make this clear, this from the OP:

Never mind the disgustingness of the murder and of the murderers, never mind that. It is clear that the arabs - and given who they are, are until repudiated representative of all arabs - have betrayed themselves in the betrayal of their own customs. In this they are utterly disgusting. — tim wood

(Some arabs disgust me. As, for example, most Republicans in the USA disgust me, and some North Koreans and some Russians and some Catholics disgust me, and so on. No group is neglected, nor should be. I am an equal opportunity disgustee. But I try to exercise as much judgment as I can, else I'm overwhelmed by the sheer number of candidates. If I have to date my disgust of middle easterners, I'd say it started with listening to Yasser Arafat. But I remind myself that it is likely that the arab man-in-the-street is disgusted by far more of his "countrymen" than I ever will be (because I am of a forgiving nature, and I believe that vengeance is part of the middle-eastern code of honour).)

Now we can stop here - your choice. The murder has nothing to do with any tradition I know of. Do you think that thoughtful, sensitive arabs, middle-easterners - sharers of that heritage/culture - might be just a little bit put out that such a horror occurred within their cultural horizon? Just as thoughtful, right-thinking Americans are still concerned with a number of issues in their own culture, or Russians, or Germans, or really as anyone with a cultural identity would be?

One way to see and to show this fallacy is to change taxonomic levels and see how it looks then. Is the Welsh Assembly Government a representative of all Celts or all people of Indo-European culture? How about all humans?