Daniel Luban, co-author with Jim Lobe of a superb analysis of what befell Chas Freeman, writes:
Not sure if you've read the Times and Post stories on Freeman yet, but
thought you might be interested as they fit the "shifting parameters of
debate" theme you often talk about on the blog. I was really startled when reading them to see how willing they are
to cut through all the bad-faith arguments about Saudi and Chinese ties
and baldly state that the Israel lobby is the main story here. (The
Times one is a little better than the Post in this regard.) In fact
they are not so different in tone from the stories Jim and I wrote. I
cannot imagine that the Times and Post would have covered the story
this way five years ago, or even one.
thought you might be interested as they fit the "shifting parameters of
debate" theme you often talk about on the blog. I was really startled when reading them to see how willing they are
to cut through all the bad-faith arguments about Saudi and Chinese ties
and baldly state that the Israel lobby is the main story here. (The
Times one is a little better than the Post in this regard.) In fact
they are not so different in tone from the stories Jim and I wrote. I
cannot imagine that the Times and Post would have covered the story
this way five years ago, or even one.
Weiss: Credit should go to the Post's Walter Pincus, whom I blasted on this site yesterday for refusing to broach the lobby in his original story on Freeman's exit, for addressing the issue more straightforwardly in his piece. But Pincus, I must say: Pinkhas is my Hebrew name. I was not raised with very much Zionism, and I thank my parents for saving me from the slopbuckets of nationalism. I wonder what infusion of Zionism you received. Can we talk?
