basketcase said:
1. Israel as a democratic nation ISfar superior to the thugs of Hamas. It has nothing to do with race or religion, just theocratic thugs who forcibly displaced all opposition compared to a state where democracy works as it should. Beyond that, people are people.
It has everything to do with situation. Extreme poverty and oppression breeds extreme fanaticism. A lot of that is on Israel. In Israel's last attack they caused close to $2 billion dollars worth of damage and they constantly disrupt Palestinian society with blockades. See you don't seem to understand cause and effect too well.
Part of that, I'm sure, is not wanting to see the moral equivalency between the two sides because you are rabidly pro-Israeli.
basketcase said:
2. I believe my use of the term racist or anti-semitic has been limited to a few on this board like gryf with their do anything to attack Israel mentality and people like you who believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy.
When you say a Jewish conspiracy are you really referring to Jewish propaganda? Are those two words - conspiracy and propaganda - interchangeable for you? I'm not sure if you are being purposefully retarded or are just plain retarded and don't understand the difference. Which is it?
basketcase said:
3. AIPAC is nowhere near the most influential lobbies in Washington. Oil, Auto sector (with it's billion dollar gift), and Pharma are clearly the big shots.
Such denial. Was the president speaking at their annual conferences like he was at AIPAC?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/16/aipac/
AIPAC, whose own literature notes that it has been described by the New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel," has been highly successful in building strong relationships with both U.S. political parties. This year's conference was attended by everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and other 2008 presidential contenders), as well as former CIA director James Woolsey. Leaders from Congress were there, as were numerous officials from the State Department and White House.
AIPAC has been one of the top two most influential groups in Washington for a long time.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/
The fact that AIPAC, which is ranked as the second-most powerful lobby in the country (trailing only AARP, but ahead of the NRA) virtually dictates U.S. policy in the Mideast has long been one of those surreal facts of Washington life that politicians discuss only when they get near retirement -- if then. In 2004, Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings had the bad taste to reveal this inconvenient truth when he said, "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here." Michael Massing, who has done exemplary reporting on AIPAC for the New York Review of Books, quoted a congressional staffer as saying, "We can count on well over half the House -- 250 to 300 members -- to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants." In unguarded moments, even top AIPAC figures have confirmed such claims. The New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg quoted Steven Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign-policy director who is now awaiting trial on charges of passing top-secret Pentagon information to Israel, as saying, "You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin."
Here's an article in CNN from 1997
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234927/index.htm
The Power 25 is a highly eclectic--almost curious--collection. From the 33-million-member American Association of Retired Persons, which polled No. 1 (to no one's surprise), to the ever controversial International Brotherhood of Teamsters (No. 25), and from the calculatedly quiet American Israel Public Affairs Committee (a remarkable No. 2) to the newly emergent National Restaurant Association (No. 24), the Washington 25 is as diverse as the nation itself. But it is more than that. It is a crystalline reminder that Alexis de Tocqueville was right more than 150 years ago when he observed that Americans were inveterate joiners who liked to cluster themselves into quasi-political volunteer groups.
So how about we cut the conspiracy shit? You are only proving your own ignorance.
basketcase said:
4. What kind of logic assumes that because someone in media is Jewish that they mindlessly support Israel? That is about the equivilent that all Christian media members us their influence to support the Pope. This belief of yours and your going to the length of trotting out a few Jewish names is why I feel completely justified in calling you a racist and why I will continue to do so.
A "few Jewish names" are some of the most powerful media names in the USA and even around the world.
Obviously not every Jewish person will mindlessly support Israel but enough will. You are a HUGE case in point. You think of yourself as objective but you refuse to look for the moral equivalency on both sides. Say, for example, you owned FOX news Corporation like Rupert Mudoch. There is no way, there would be very much criticism of Israel (token at best) and you would be hysterically screaming racist at criticism from the other side and accusing the progressive critics of believing in a Jewish conspiracy to try to marginalize them. That's your game.
basketcase said:
5. Do you seriously think that either the movie industry had advance notice of the Gaza conflict and produced movies well in advance as a plan or do you think that the movies were made in just a couple of days after the conflict broke out?
Valkyrie started shooting in July of 2007.
Defiance started shooting in September of 2007.
Both movies were shot by Jewish directors. So you tell me. Two movies, shot by Jewish directors in 2007, released at the same time in December of 2008, when Israel was attacking in the Gaza strip. The timing of the releases seem awfully, awfully coincidental to me. I don't believe in coincidences of that magnitude, do you?
basketcase said:
6. NA media has pro-Israel and anti-Israel views. In Toronto, the Star leans anti-Israel and the Post pro-Israel. Balance is what the internet is for and is why many, including myself, will read al-Jazeera and other non-American media.
NA has a pro-Israeli bias. Can you honestly not see that? Again people elect governments that represent their interests for the most part. Do you dispute that the USA government has sided with Israel
way more than any other country in the UN?
basketcase said:
7. Why are their no Nakba movies? Maybe it's because people haven't wanted to invest in them or thought they wouldn't be successful. All that is needed is a producer and investors.
In the end, the Palestinian side isn't nearly as powerful/controlling of public perception as the Israeli side. You can't argue the fact. Holocaust movies are made
now to reinforce the idea that the Jewish people are victims (and by extension blameless). Sure they were indeed the victims of a Nazi Holocaust but that doesn't mean they are the victims of the ME conflict too but that powerful association is a very successful part of Israeli propaganda.
basketcase said:
8. Whether or not NA media is pro-Israel, your belief in what amounts to a Jewish conspiracy does nothing to provide balance. All it does is expose your racist beliefs.
Please try to understand the difference between conspiracy and propaganda for your next post, okay? You and Inferno have this bad habit of throwing around words that sound bad and evil without a real understanding of their meaning.
You also need to understand the word racist. It is embarrassing your ignorance. Saying that Israel (and by extension some very successful Jewish people whom identify with the Israeli cause) have been extremely successful from a public relations standpoint in NA is not racist. However saying that one group of people would act morally different than another group of people in the same situation is racist.
basketcase said:
You will not find many Israelis celebrating the deaths of Palestinian civilians yet Palestinians who kill Israeli civilians are hailed as martyrs and heros