Jack Ross writes: Not sure what to make of what happened except to say that it is not a signal of anything in actual policy terms. To illustrate the point, read the following blog from two days ago by Steve Walt, and notice that it makes absolutely no mention of Freeman. (Also notice the absolutely dashing picture of Obama that pushes my bi-curious button).
I also noticed that the Lobby shrewdly used the lack of MSM coverage to its advantage, in other words they were able to stay under the radar as long as the other side was as well. Ever since MSNBC became decisively on the left, they seem to just avoid any coverage of the Middle East at all costs. And it seems that since Gaza all of the MSM is there as well. The Lobby can adapt to that situation, but they remain weakened. I suspect it really was Freeman's decision to step aside, considering how it caught everyone off guard, but even if the Lobby has won this skirmish I don't see how they can return to the electoral arena to take on Baird, Ellison et al, for instance.
How does the fact that Steve Walt blogged two days ago and didn't mention Freeman have anything to do with how policy would be shaped with Freeman being NIC chair as opposed to his not being there?
Bizarre logic.
There is no way to know, one way or the other.
Common sense says that it would be an enormous waste of time and resources for the Lobby to put so much effort into falsely impugning Freeman if they felt policy would be no different with or without him.
I think you shouldn't underestimate the need for the Lobby to flex its muscles periodically (and frequently) to make sure the lawmakers, careerists, and opinion-makers comprehend its power.
How else explain the endless succession of Israel-cheerleading (though mostly meaningless) resolutions they demand Congress pass almost every week? A form of discipline — like making your dog "heel" or "sit" before getting a treat. . .
Walt's item 3 asks "whether we can broker the long-delayed peace treaty with Israel (which will require Israel to return the Golan Heights)" and the answer to that is surely, no chance.
@ Jaffr,
Yep, that sounds about right. Congress is Israel's whore. or bitch. Whichever you prefer.
The Lobby does not need to take on Baird, Ellison, etc.
Baird, Ellison, Levy each described the conflict in Gaza/Southern Israel as a conflict, requiring reconciliation NOT demonization. They each stated that the rockets must stop, and that Gaza needs tangible help.
The emphasis of the majority of those that donate to AIPAC, is "stop the shelling of Israeli civilians", not "we hate Arabs, we'll do anything to see them suffer".
So, unless Baird, Ellison, Levy have abandoned their analysis that shelling of Israeli civilians is inconsequential, AIPAC will be happy for their commitment and conclusions.
Witty: 'The emphasis of the majority of those that donate to AIPAC, is "stop the shelling of Israeli civilians", not "we hate Arabs, we'll do anything to see them suffer".'
The majority of those who donate to AIPAC, just like the Christian Zionists, don't have enough objectivity to intelligently analyze the situation, and thus pretty much think whatever they’re told by Israel Synagogue Headquarters and its Zionist fifth column minions scattered around the US.
Ross: "Ever since MSNBC became decisively on the left, they seem to just avoid any coverage of the Middle East at all costs. And it seems that since Gaza all of the MSM is there as well."
This fits in what we're hearing about Emanuel not wanting to split the left-liberal coalition over Freeman. The mainstream media, which is part of the left-liberal coalition (and some really believe there's an objective, unbiased fourth estate?) doesn't want to split the left-liberal coalition, either. So they ignore Zionist murder in the Mideast and tangential issues, like Freeman.
Who are they worried would split off? Primarily rich Zionist Jews who have bought and sold the party for years like the prostitute it is. In fact, a quite a few of those are media bosses. They don't want them going over to the male-prostitute GOP.
The emphasis of the majority of those that donate to AIPAC, is "stop the shelling of Israeli civilians", not "stop the occupation and settlements." Egg, chicken. Symptom, root disease.