On Charles Freeman and the Blogosphere
David J. Rothkopf, blogging at Foreign Policy, has a lot to say about the Charles Freeman’s withdrawal as head of the National Intelligence Council, and I am inclined to agree with his assertion that, in spite of my moment of shock and anger at certain pro-Israel lobbyists actions, “the Israel lobby” is no more or less important than any other interest group that lobbies in DC, nor is it a kind of unified shadow conspiracy. Try getting two Jews to agree on anything, let alone pull off a conspiracy to manipulate the entire US government. It just isn’t feasible. And of course, members of Congress say they never heard from AIPAC on this issue. The whole post is interesting, and I certainluy don’t agree with everything he says (anti-Semites, like any bigots, will use whatever they can to prove their insidious ideas. Walt can’t be blamed for how his ideas are used), but it’s an important discussion.
The best part however, is not about Israel, Freeman, AIPAC, or human rights in China. It’s about blogging:
“Believe me I don’t lightly come to the ultimate conclusion that this [Chas.Freeman debacle] should not change my view of [Walt and Mearsheimer's] work. I was appalled by the mob mentality generated by the blog debate on the Freeman nomination. It produced some serious misgivings on my part regarding even being involved in the blogosphere because so much of what passes for discourse in this world is undistilled opinion and emotion designed to bind and stir up like-minded audiences. The rest is more like grafitti than thoughtful commentary, designed to leave a wannabe commentator’s mark on the side of a passing issue.”
I won’t try to tag this issue any further myself.
