Abe, this sort of casual acceptance of the premise, if not the name, behind the “Israel Lobby” canard raises two issues:

First, it is indicative of lazy and/or biased reporting. Polticio assumes that Chas Freeman was sunk because of his views on Israel. Why? Well, not based on any factual reporting — just the implicit assumption that where there are Jews there is Israel lobbying going on. In fact, Newsweek, in a remarkable bit of actual reporting tells a different story of his undoing:

But Pelosi’s objections reportedly focused on Freeman’s ties to China. A well-placed Democratic source said Pelosi, a strong supporter of the Chinese human-rights movement, was incensed about public remarks that Freeman once made that seemed to justify the violent 1989 Chinese government crackdown on democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square. The source, who asked not to be identified, said Pelosi thought Freeman’s views were “indefensible” and complained directly to President Obama about his selection.

[.  . .]

Pelosi in particular was upset about public comments that seemed to belittle the Chinese human-rights movement—a cause she has championed for years. In 2005, for instance, Freeman was quoted as writing in a public e-mail about the Tiananmen Square massacre: “[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud … In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at ‘Tian’anmen’ stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.

“I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be,” he added. “Such folk, whether they represent a veterans’ ‘Bonus Army’ or a ‘student uprising’ on behalf of ‘the goddess of democracy’ should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy.”

Second, the effect, if not the intent, of the “supporter of Israel” line is to cast doubt on any position which Jews might offer, however unrelated to Israel. When Norm Coleman sets forth his views on Afghanistan — or the economy for that matter — do we dismiss them because it’s just his support of Israel talking? If Eric Cantor objects to the administration’s cavalier attitude toward Iran’s nuclear program should we ignore him too, because he’s just a supporter of Israel?  Preventing such insidious intervention into our political system, if you carry their argument to its logical conclusion, can be achieved only through Jews shutting up. And frankly, they must insist that not just Jews, but anyone who supports Israel, shut up because they can’t possibly be offering principled views unrelated to their opinions on Israel.

I think much good has come from the Freeman debacle, including the revival of left-leaning thinkers who see through this cant. But I share your pessimism that either by intent or through intellectual laziness the media is adopting the language and tone of Walt and Mearsheimer.