The Israel lobby and Republican neocons have scored their first triumph of the Obama administration by derailing the appointment of Chas Freeman as director of the National Intelligence Council.

Freeman was a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and known as an outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation. Director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, an old friend, appointed Freeman to head the agency that produces intelligence estimates for nations that pose a danger of terrorism to US interests. During the Bush administration these estimates were quite controversial, and the report for Iran judged that the regime had suspended its nuclear programme, running counter to the claims of Dick Cheney and other Iran hawks.

Because of his strong, critical views on Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, knocking out Freeman was one of the lobby's top priorities. To his credit, the feisty Freeman went down swinging. He landed heavy blows on his detractors:

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonour and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the wilful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.

The next time anyone qvells about how moderate a Republican Olympia Snowe is, just remember that she signed a highly partisan letter attacking Freeman that every Republican member of the Senate intelligence committee also signed. Given her status as a swing vote and party moderate, her participation may have sealed his fate. She caved to rightist pressure at the drop of a hat.

But Democrats like Charles Schumer also led the charge against Freeman. "Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and went beyond anything I have seen from any administration official," Schumer said in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

This raises another important and obvious point: Democrats are not automatically friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace. "Liberal" and "conservative" in their normal domestic context have little or no meaning as far as the conflict. There are liberal bloggers like Markos Moulitsas who haven't learned that lesson yet and may never because peace is a secondary issue (if it's an issue at all) to the primary goal of attaining and preserving Democratic political power.

But I also believe that progressive Democrats, bloggers, Middle East analysts and the Obama administration itself also share some blame for Freeman's withdrawal. They didn't mobilise in time to wage a counter-attack against the smears. The New York Times, for example, didn't weigh in with a news story or editorial at all. It confirmed Freeman's "funeral" with a story the day he withdrew. While it's true that journalists like Matt Ygleisias, James Fallows, MJ Rosenberg, Spencer Ackerman, Greg Sargent spoke out in favour of Freeman, along with and fellow CIA/intelligence officers, most did so late in the game after the lobby had drawn first blood. By then the damage had been done. I hope they won't be caught as flat-footed next time.

This was a Lexington and Concord for the Israel lobby, the first skirmish in what they know will be a long war against any constructive Obama impulse to address the real issues in the conflict and resolve them. It is the lobby saying: Take what we tell you very, very seriously or you will know our wrath.

Aipac's Josh Block somewhat disingenuously told the New York Times that his organisation had "taken no position" on the Freeman appointment. Spencer Ackerman writes that Aipac's campaign against the former ambassador was one of the Beltway's worst kept secrets and that the group had been "shopping around oppo research" on him for some time.

I am sorry that Obama and Dennis Blair withdrew from the field with hardly a fight. It doesn't augur well for the trench warfare that will be necessary in the future if there is ever to be a US role in midwiving peace in the Middle East. In this one, Obama faced the lobby eyeball to eyeball and flinched.

You certainly can try to argue that this appointment was not the type that warranted a major expenditure of political capital. Freeman is a bridge toward the goal but not the goal itself. There will be significant battles, and the administration needs to save its powder for those.

But what is lacking in this analysis is the symbolic importance of the Freeman appointment and its savaging. Politics, like football, is a game of inches. It is a game of momentum. The lobby has tripped up Obama's momentum and grabbed the agenda, at least momentarily. And both Blair and Obama have lost the benefit of an honest broker, who would not be afraid to tell them when they were wearing no clothes.

Seems to me we've just completed eight years of an administration that ran from the truth tellers as fast as their feet would carry them. Similarly, the lobby wants no truth tellers when it comes to devising US policy toward Israel. It wants sycophants, yes-men, pols who know how to line up in a straight line. We can see how well this policy worked for George Bush. And it won't work for an administration that wants to act as a more honest broker, rather than a cheerleader or enabler of one side's bad habits.

This is a very sad day for anyone who really wishes for Israeli-Palestinian peace and a vigorous American role in achieving it.