WASHINGTON: Ambassador Charles Freeman's withdrawal of his appointment to direct Washington's top intelligence assessment post is still reverberating all over town. Picked by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair for the prestigious post — chairman of the National Intelligence Council — Freeman withdrew his nomination earlier this month after seven Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee signed a letter to Blair protesting his appointment.

Republicans and some Democrats objected to his statements opposing Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, as well as what they called "his lack of intelligence experience."

Despite his distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, Freeman — who since 1997 has headed the Middle East Policy Council — had come under fire for making critical statements about Israel.

Freeman did not step down quietly. He released a statement hours after his withdrawal.

"The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonestly and indecency and include character assassination, selective misrepresentation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and the utter disregard for truth," Freeman said.

Freeman said the aim of the Israel lobby is "control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views.

"The libels on me and their easily traceable e-mail trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired," Freeman wrote in a message to reporters.

"It was hardly the kind of victory that Jewish groups were wishing for," noted Forward, an American Jewish weekly newspaper, on Freeman's withdrawal.

"Although most Jewish groups did not take an official stand on the Freeman issue, it is clear that many pro-Israel players and opinion-makers were involved in the debate," noted Forward.

Critics now believe that Freeman's pushback has given credibility to those who have been opposed to the strength of the Israel lobby.

"Freeman became sort of a martyr," argued Ian Lustick, political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, in Forward. "The lobby might have won, but they paid a price."

But some Mideast observers say that Freeman's departure sends a signal that the Obama administration is not going to change American policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate," wrote Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic.

"Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama," John Mearsheimer wrote in the March 26 edition of The London Review of Books. Three years ago, he and Stephen Walt published an article about the Israel lobby, which later was expanded into a book, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy."

Mearsheimer said the Israel lobby had now gone to "great lengths" to deny its role in Freeman's resignation, and cited The Washington Post which ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman's resignation was something dreamed up by "Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists."

"On March 12, the day The Washington Post ran its editorial dismissing anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: 'The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place,'" wrote Mearsheimer.

"The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel," wrote Mearsheimer.

"Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of The New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as The National Review, The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard," he wrote.

Jonathan Chait noted after Freeman withdrew: "Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the push against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good."

Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an e-mail newsletter crowing about Rosen's role in bringing Freeman down.

Freeman's critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is alleged to have especially close ties to Saudi Arabia where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge did not stick, however, as no evidence emerged in support of it.