Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    What Does The “Israel Lobby” Have To Do With The Discovery Channel Hostage Taking?

    What Does The “Israel Lobby” Have To Do With The Discovery Channel Hostage Taking?

    I knew groups like Think Progress would be out there trying to paint the mentally deranged environmental activist who took hostages as a right-winger (because all extreme environmentalists are right -wingers, after all), and it did.

    But not even Think Progress sunk to the level of PhilipWeiss, who used the incident to continue his anti-“Israel Lobby” jihad, The Israel lobby will be televised

    How could Weiss possibly drag the evil Israel Lobby into this?  Well, when you are used to putting two and two together and getting five, anything is possible:

    For the better part of an hour this afternoon, during the hostage crisis at the Discovery channel HQ in Silver Spring, MD, CNN featured commentary by Aaron Cohen, who was described as a trainer of Israeli commandoes.  Cohen repeatedly explained how Israel handles such situations. When the anchor asked whether the police could just wait till the guy wears down, Cohen said that in “terrorist” situations people don’t just wear down. So an advocate for one side in a terrible cycle of violence is given a platform on American television.

    A nut takes people hostage, and all Weiss can think to do is use it for Israel and Israel-supporter bashing just because an Israeli appeared on television? Max Fisher very charitably called Weiss “work[ing] hard for this.”

    I have to admit, I never saw the Israel Lobby angle to the story.  What exactly would have been the opposing viewpoint to the Israeli anti-terrorism expert?

    Now I get it.  CNN should have had a terrorist on the show to balance the Israeli anti-terrorist expert.

    Or maybe Philip Weiss could have filled in until a terrorist could be found and brought to the studio, with live field reports from Walt and Mearsheimer.

    Oh, by the way, the answer to the headline question is “nothing.”

    Related Posts:
    Israel-Firsters Unite
    The “Israel-Firsters” Slur Rears Its Ugly Head

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
     Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Andrea, wow, way to get tl;dr when what you're basically on is that you'd prefer Mr. Jacobson and others to abide by some of the technical rather than colloquial definitions of "insane" and its synonyms.

    That would be what some like to label "unrealistic expections" you nutty little defender of dead murderers you.


    The biggest word in Andrea's response to you was 'reasonableness.' I also notice you didn't response to her ripping your 'Nazi' argument (another label) to shreds.

    But, be that as it may, below you will find a 'simple sentence structure.' of Andrea's response to you (without the aforementioned Nazi accusation rebuttal):

    One note before reading: I do believe Andrea babbled on a little too long before coming to her point (Prof's mislabeling of Lee), but I was willing to read her arguments, entertain her points, and come to my own decisions without attacking her for having a contrasting viewpoint. Imagine that? Anyway, the rebuttal, Phil:

    The reasonableness tests I referred to were common law legal arguments, not theories.

    In my culture we are not obsessed with fault and blame, but with the root causes of our problems, so we can address those. That is one difference between our cultures. Yours is concerned with who is wrong, which is what you use courts of law to decide. I used what your own courts’ might have used to evaluate Mr. Lee. Who knows the outcome?

    I don't think Mr. Lee thought of himself as a victim. I think he knew he may die, and he was willing to do so, to get his message heard. There may be other Lee's and if we don't attempt to understand what happened, we run the risk of isolating others like him (with more bad results).

    The legal reasonableness test is not — as far as I know — complicated or pretentious (YOUR WORD), but a principle of common law. Millions of real people who are brought before real courts, and real magistrates in real time, have their actions tested in accordance to the common law reasonableness test every day. Simply because most are ignorant a reasonableness test is being applied, doesn’t mean it isn’t still happening.

    The point of a debate is, as far as I am aware, the willingness to hear different viewpoints, and form your own opinion based on the evidence of all sides. The only things that I consider true, i.e. non debatable are issues of absolute fact. What you may read in a police report, the details of what occurred. Once we get to analyzing those facts, why, what moved him, was he sane, etc.. it is my opinion we are now moving into what is debatable. If not, why bother with courts of law, to determine the truth about differing analysis for motive, sanity, events with multiple viewpoints, etc?

    I don't think Mr. Lee miscalculated at all, according to his sense of urgency and beliefs. I think its possible he knew what he was doing, and had he lived a forensic psychologist would have found him — mens rea/actus reus — sane enough to stand trial. If he had a big-time lawyer, who applied the political necessity defence, it would have been an interesting trial.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend