No subject

nist, and neoconservative blogs, then to the websites of neocons mouthpiece=
s like the New Republic , Commentary , National Review , and the Weekly Sta=
ndard , which referred to Freeman as a "Saudi puppet." From there, it would=
 spread to the Atlantic and then to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Jour=
nal , where Gabriel Schoenfeld called Freeman a "China-coddling Israel bash=
er," and the Washington Post , where Jonathan Chait of the New Republic lab=
eled Freeman a "fanatic."=20



Before long, staunch partisans for Israel on Capitol Hill were getting into=
 the act. These would, in the end, include Representative Steve Israel and =
Senator Charles Schumer, both New York Democrats; a group of Republican Hou=
se members led by John Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, and Eric Canto=
r of Virginia, the Republican Whip; seven Republican members of the Senate =
Select Committee on Intelligence; and, finally, Senator Joe Lieberman of Co=
nnecticut, who engaged in a sharp exchange with Admiral Blair about Freeman=
 at a Senate hearing.=20



Though Blair strongly defended Freeman, the two men got no support from an =
anxious White House, which took (politely put) a hands-off approach. Seeing=
 the writing on the wall -- all over the wall, in fact -- Freeman came to t=
he conclusion that, even if he could withstand the storm, his ability to do=
 the job had, in effect, already been torpedoed. Whatever output the Nation=
al Intelligence Council might produce under his leadership, as Freeman told=
 me in an interview, would instantly be attacked. "Anything that it produce=
d that was politically controversial would immediately be attributed to me =
as some sort of political deviant, and be discredited," he said.=20



On March 10th, Freeman bowed out, but not with a whimper. In a letter to fr=
iends and colleagues, he launched a defiant, departing counterstrike that m=
ay, in fact, have helped to change the very nature of Washington politics. =
"The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency=
 and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful d=
istortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disreg=
ard for the truth," wrote Freeman. "The aim of this lobby is control of the=
 policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of peop=
le who dispute the wisdom of its views."=20



Freeman put it more metaphorically to me: "It was a nice way of, as the Chi=
nese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys." By destroying his appoin=
tment, Freeman claimed, the Israel lobby hoped to intimidate other critics =
of Israel and U.S. Middle East policy who might seek jobs in the Obama admi=
nistration.=20



On Triumphs, Hysterias, and Mobs=20



It remains to be seen just how many "monkeys" are trembling. Certainly, the=
 Israel lobby crowed in triumph. Daniel Pipes, for instance, quickly praise=
d Rosen's role in bringing down Freeman:=20



"What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was=
 the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freema=
n's appointment," wrote Pipes. "Within hours, the word was out, and three w=
eeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve's stature a=
nd credibility could have made this happen."=20



The Zionist Organization of America, a far-right advocacy group that suppor=
ts Israel, sent out follow-up Action Alerts to its membership, ringing furt=
her alarm bells about Freeman as part of a campaign to mobilize public opin=
ion and Congress. Behind the scenes, AIPAC quietly used its considerable cl=
out, especially with friends and allies in the media. And Chuck Schumer, wh=
o had trotted over to the White House to talk to Rahm Emanuel, President Ob=
ama's chief of staff, later said bluntly:=20



"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements agains=
t Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administra=
tion. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they =
did the right thing."=20



Numerous reporters, including Max Blumenthal at the Daily Beast website and=
 Spencer Ackerman of Firedoglake , have effectively documented the role of =
the Israel lobby, including AIPAC, in sabotaging Freeman's appointment. Fro=
m their accounts and others, it seems clear that the lobby left its fingerp=
rints all over Freeman's National Intelligence Council corpse. (Indeed, Tim=
e's Joe Klein described the attack on Freeman as an "assassination," adding=
 that the term "lobby" doesn't do justice to the methods of the various lob=
bying groups, individuals, and publications: "He was the victim of a mob, n=
ot a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives.")=20



On the other hand, the Washington Post , in a near-hysterical editorial , d=
ecided to pretend that the Israel lobby really doesn't exist, accusing Free=
man instead of sending out a "crackpot tirade." Huffed the Post , "Mr. Free=
man issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as th=
e victim of a shadowy and sinister 'Lobby'... His statement was a grotesque=
 libel."=20



The Post's case might have been stronger, had it not, just one day earlier,=
 printed an editorial in which it called on Attorney General Eric Holder to=
 exonerate Steve Rosen and drop the espionage case against him. Entitled "T=
ime to Call It Quits," the editorial said:=20



"The matter involves Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former officia=
ls for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC... A trial ha=
s been scheduled for June in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distri=
ct of Virginia. Mr. Holder should pull the plug on this prosecution long be=
fore then."=20



In his interview with me , Freeman noted the propensity members of the Isra=
el lobby have for denying the lobby's existence, even while taking credit f=
or having forced him out and simultaneously claiming that they had nothing =
to do with it. "We're now at the ludicrous stage where those who boasted of=
 having done it and who described how they did it are now denying that they=
 did it," he said.=20



Running Scared=20



The Israel lobby has regularly denied its own existence even as it has long=
 carried on with its work, in stealth as in the bright sunlight. In retrosp=
ect, however, l'affaire Freeman may prove a game changer. It has already sp=
arked a new, more intense mainstream focus on the lobby, one that far surpa=
sses the flap that began in March, 2006, over the publication of an essay b=
y John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt in the London Review of Books that was, =
in 2007, expanded into a book, The Israel Lobby . In fact, one of the sins =
committed by Freeman, according to his critics, is that an organization he =
headed, the Middle East Policy Council, published an early version of the M=
earsheimer-Walt thesis -- which argued that a powerful, pro-Israel coalitio=
n exercises undue influence over American policymakers -- in its journal.=
=20



In his blog at Foreign Policy , Walt reacted to Freeman's decision to withd=
raw by writing:=20



"For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a power=
ful 'Israel lobby,' or who admitted that it existed but didn't think it had=
 much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly a=
ll-powerful 'Saudi lobby,' think again."=20



What the Freeman affair brought was unwanted, often front-page attention to=
 the lobby. Writers at countless blogs and websites -- including yours trul=
y, at the Dreyfuss Report -- dissected or reported on the lobby's assault o=
n Freeman, including Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe at Antiwar.com , Glenn Green=
wald in his Salon.com column , M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Peace Forum , a=
nd Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss . Far more striking, however, is that for the f=
irst time in memory, both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran pa=
ge-one stories about the Freeman controversy that specifically used the phr=
ase "Israel lobby," while detailing the charges and countercharges that fol=
lowed upon Freeman's claim that the lobby did him in.=20



This new attention to the lobby's work comes at a critical moment, which is=
 why the toppling of Freeman might be its Waterloo.=20



As a start, right-wing partisans of Israel have grown increasingly anxious =
about the direction that President Obama intends to take when it comes to U=
.S. policy toward Israel, the Palestinians, Iran, and the Middle East gener=
ally. Despite the way, in the middle of the presidential campaign last June=
, Obama recited a pro-Israeli catechism in a speech at AIPAC's national con=
ference in Washington, they remain unconvinced that he will prove reliable =
on their policy concerns. Among other things, they have long been suspiciou=
s of his reputed openness to Palestinian points of view.=20



No less important, while the appointments of Hillary Clinton as his secreta=
ry of state and Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff were reassuring, other a=
ppointments were far less so. They were, for instance, concerned by several=
 of Obama's campaign advisers -- and not only Robert Malley of the Internat=
ional Crisis Group and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski=
, who were quietly eased out of Obamaland early in 2008. An additional sour=
ce of worry was Daniel Shapiro and Daniel Kurtzer, both Jewish, who served =
as Obama's top Middle East aides during the campaign and were seen as not s=
ufficiently loyal to the causes favored by hardline, right-wing types.=20



Since the election, many lobby members have viewed a number of Obama's top =
appointments, including Shapiro, who's taken the Middle East portfolio at t=
he National Security Council, and Kurtzer, who's in line for a top State De=
partment job, with great unease. Take retired Marine general and now Nation=
al Security Advisor James L. Jones, who, like Brzezinski, is seen as too sy=
mpathetic to the Palestinian point of view and who reputedly wrote a report=
 last year highly critical of Israel's occupation policies; or consider Geo=
rge Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, who is regarded by=
 many pro-Israeli hawks as far too level-headed and even-handed to be a goo=
d mediator; or, to mention one more appointment, Samantha Power, author of =
A Problem from Hell and now a National Security Council official who has, i=
n the past, made comments sharply critical of Israel.=20



Of all of these figures, Freeman, because of his record of blunt statements=
, was the most vulnerable. His appointment looked like low-hanging fruit wh=
en it came to launching a concerted, preemptive attack on the administratio=
n. As it happens, however, this may prove anything but a moment of strength=
 for the lobby. After all, the recent three-week Israeli assault on Gaza ha=
d already generated a barrage of headlines and television images that made =
Israel look like a bully nation with little regard for Palestinian lives, i=
ncluding those of women and children. According to polls taken in the wake =
of Gaza, growing numbers of Americans, including many in the Jewish communi=
ty, have begun to exhibit doubts about Israel's actions, a rare moment when=
 public opinion has begun to tilt against Israel.=20



Perhaps most important of all, Israel is about to be run by an extremist, u=
ltra right-wing government led by Likud Party leader Bibi Netanyahu, and in=
cluding the even more extreme party of Avigdor Lieberman, as well as a host=
 of radical-right religious parties. It's an ugly coalition that is guarant=
eed to clash with the priorities of the Obama White House.=20



As a result, the arrival of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government is also guar=
anteed to prove a crisis moment for the Israel lobby. It will present an en=
ormous public-relations problem, akin to the one that faced ad agency Hill =
& Knowlton during the decades in which it had to defend Philip Morris, the =
hated cigarette company that repeatedly denied the link between its product=
s and cancer. The Israel lobby knows that it will be difficult to sell cart=
ons of menthol smooth Netanyahu-Lieberman 100s to American consumers.=20



Indeed, Freeman told me:=20



"The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term 'Israe=
l lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for, or about Israel. It's really, =
well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman=
 lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters=
 here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with.=
"=20



So here's the reality behind the Freeman debacle: Already worried over Team=
 Obama, suffering the after-effects of the Gaza debacle, and about to be bu=
rdened with the Netanyahu-Lieberman problem, the Israel lobby is undoubtedl=
y running scared. They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test=
 of their strength is yet to come.=20



Robert Dreyfuss is the author of " Devil's Game: How the United States Help=
ed Unleash Fundamentalist Islam " (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).