Can’t We Have Honest Discussions about Peace and Race?

We’ve had frequent dishonest monologues about both but few honest discussions about either. Can we have honest discussions?
Probably not now. 

Honest discussions about such matters require at least a modicum of common understanding of facts, of history and of its relevance. They also require common goals at least as to ultimate outcome. When both sides want and need peace, peace is possible. When one side wants and needs peace and the concomitant prosperity it would likely bring, while the other side(s) want and need continued strife and the resources to perpetuate it, peace is very unlikely — even if the side desiring peace caves, in the case of Israel in particular, on everything except its own survival.

When all sides seek to discourage racism, racism can cease to be a significant factor in society. When many want to discourage racism while many others try to foment it, racism will persist until those who want to end racism reject, en masse, those who foment it. Those arguing for “peace” in the Middle East while actively preventing it, and those who claim to want to end racism while actively exacerbating it, seem to be doing their utmost to prevent their publicly stated goals from being achieved.

Peace in the Middle East

Barry Rubin posted an article on July 19th titled Kerry Runs Around in Rings. It deals principally with the current allegedly “honest discussion” about peace between Israel and the “Palestinians.”

Once again a lot of people think that Secretary of State John Kerry is on the verge of making a breakthrough toward peace. The problem is that these people believe that the contenders were born yesterday, that they have no constraints whatsoever.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has no intention of making peace. It only wants to get concessions and blame Israel for an absence of peace. It knows that the Obama Administration will never punish it if it balks but probably will only offer it more.

The PA doesn’t want to make peace since any actual concessions will make it appear to be a traitor and will bring a counter-offensive from Hamas. Since it doesn’t even represent the territory it claims—it has no power over the Gaza Strip and has no prospect of getting any—the PA cannot make any binding commitment at all. And it is watching as the battle for Syria is going on next door. That would give it a radical neighbor—the United States is supporting it—which will deem a peace agreement as null and void.

In a related matter, Hamas has declared the return to “peace talks” a disaster.

Every PA negotiator knows well that he isn’t supposed to succeed. It is only Kerry who doesn’t know this.

As for Israel, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that it cannot depend on the United States. For example, the key issue is supposedly the precondition of what the borders will be. Now think this one through:

The PA demands and must demand that the 1967 lines would be the state borders. BUT the United States on two occasions, in the George Bush administration and in later 2010—told Israel that it could keep “settlement blocs,” that is large settlements along the borders. It is thus impossible that Netanyahu would agree to accept the loss of that U.S. commitment.

Why should he not get something for nothing, show that the president’s past commitment was worthless, and simultaneously know that any time the PA wants more that Obama will give it to them?

And of course his coalition—even his own party—won’t agree. Does Israel so desperately need “peace” that it must be purchased at its reduced security?

Meanwhile what is the United States doing for Israel on Egypt (still refusing recognizing the military regime in Egypt), Lebanon (not keeping the 2006 commitment to combat Hizballah); Syria (pushing weapons on Islamists which Israel will have to confront in future); the Gaza Strip (having no policy to bring down Hamas); Iran (no serious plan for denying nuclear weapons), and Turkey (letting Ankara ignore the supposed détente even though it was promised by Obama himself)?

And that’s not even mentioning the demand for millions of Palestinian Arabs to “return” to Israel or Jerusalem?

There is nothing for Israel in this except the promise of peace, which will evaporate as ever single Obama promise has also done.

Please read Mr. Rubin’s entire article. He is one of the few who write based on substantial understandings of tensions in the Middle East. There are probably “Palestinians” who share a desire for true peace with Israel and the bounties it would likely bring to all. However, they generally remain silent while those who profit from its absence yell and do worse. Unfortunately, President Obama’s foreign policies (assuming that he has any) tend to favor the latter.

An end to racism in the United States

See also the comment about Mr. Whittle’s presentation at Power line.

There are many in the United States who sincerely desire an end to racism and the problems that continue to perpetuate it. Allen West appears to be one and Benjamin Carson appears to be another. Conservatives, they are generally ignored or disparaged by others of different ideological/political persuasions.

There are doubtless some — perhaps like Secretary Kerry —  who are, or elect to be, blind to reality and hence fail to recognize that the pathways they propose, and those down which they lead, are specious and lead to dead ends.

The “legitimate media” had grand old times spreading untruths and promoting hatred, as Conservative Tree House has documented ever since the Zimmerman mess began. I wrote with disgust about absurdly twisted coverage by the “legitimate media“ in March of last year. Bill Whittle notes in the video embedded above that Conservative Tree House has been practicing vigorous investigative journalism, while the “legitimate media” have been pandering.

Romany Malco

An article by Romany Malco at Huffington Post observes,

To be brutally honest, the only reason people are even aware of Trayvon Martin is because it became a topic within mainstream news and pop culture. Meaning: News directors saw it as a profitable, sensational story. Hundreds of blacks die annually in South Side Chicago without even a blurb. Trayvon isn’t in the mainstream news for any reason other than ratings and profit. The news coverage on the Zimmerman case almost implies that the killing of this young black man is somehow an anomaly and I resent that. [Emphasis added.]

In this country, if it isn’t streamlined through mainstream media and pop culture, it doesn’t seem to warrant national debate. Our “government” continues to wreak havoc on our civil liberties and there is little to no protest from the black community because of media diversion tactics that keep such pertinent issues out of mainstream media. But if Jay-Z or Rihanna were to make mention of it, we’d suddenly be jolted out of our sugar comas and protesting on freeways.

My point being, people are up in arms about Trayvon based on regurgitated pundits and manipulated facts aired to elicit emotion while fueling America’s anger and division. That’s how you boost ratings. No different from Piers Morgan’s desperate rant over gun control when he knew his ratings were in the dumps. And from where I stand, anyone who still relies on corporate-owned media pundits to support an argument isn’t equipped to offer worthwhile solutions. [Emphasis added.]

It’s a good article and well worth reading.  The suggestions presented later in the article appear to make a lot of sense. Will they be implemented? Not likely in the present circumstances.

Others, including the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson, who earned their shame fame and fortune by race baiting, would be bored silly were racism to cease to exist.  They need it, and the more the better for them. President Obama would likely forfeit their support and that of their (and many of his) constituents were he to try to promote or even participate in an “honest discussion about race.”

The Reverend Messrs Sharpton and Jackson are not alone. According to the Huffington Post, a photoshopped image of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wearing a hoodie has “taken the internet by storm.”

As the country reacts to the George Zimmerman trial verdict, those unhappy with the jury’s decision have displayed an overwhelming response. While some have taken to the streets, others have taken to social media to express their feelings and show support for Trayvon Martin’s family.

One image has taken the Internet by storm, capturing the link between the case, the Civil Rights Movement and the fight for racial equality in the United States, showing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wearing a hoodie.

Former Obama advisor Van Jones tweeted the image, sparking hundreds of retweets from users including Roland Martin.

. . . .

The hoodie remained an enduring symbol of support for Trayvon throughout the trial and in the wake of the verdict. On the Sunday morning after Zimmerman’s acquittal, black pastors honored the teen with “Hoodie Sunday,” wearing hooded sweatshirts and spreading an uplifting message to their congregants.

. . . .

The hoodie 17-year-old Martin was wearing the night he was killed became a symbol of the movement to see justice done early on in the case, with celebrities, pastors, politicians and even sports teams tweeting and Instagramming powerful images of themselves donning hooded sweatshirts.

Have such demonstrations of racial “loyalty” to Mr. Martin — and perhaps by extension to President Obama — arisen at least in part from President Obama’s apparent need for as many distractions as he can muster to divert the — already minimal — media coverage and hence public attention from his own and his administration’s incompetence in foreign and economic policy — including governmental snooping, IRS scandals, Benghazi and his legacy “man made disaster,” ObamaCare? Andrew McCarthy at National Review seems to suggest that such is the case. 

The attorney general of the United States is engaged in a shocking extrajudicial publicity campaign. Eric Holder is prosecuting George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion because he knows he wouldn’t have a prayer of convicting him in a court of law. Worse, in doing so, Holder is quite deliberately stoking resentment and tension — under the guise of leading a “national conversation” about race. [Emphasis added.]

At precisely the same time, the United States secretary of health and human services has loathsomely injected race into the debate over Obamacare. Toward the conclusion of this week’s NAACP grievance fest, Kathleen Sebelius took the podium to demagogue Obamacare opponents. The fight against them, she inveighed, is reminiscent of “the fight against lynching and the fight for desegregation.” She made these inflammatory remarks just as violence was erupting over Zimmerman’s acquittal in the Trayvon Martin shooting, no small thanks to Holder’s accomplice, Al Sharpton. [Emphasis added.]

These episodes are not unrelated. They are coordinated.

. . . .

Sebelius is not agitating because she actually believes there is some faint connection between Jim Crow and opposition to socialized medicine. Sensing that no one was looking as the country kicked back for an extended Independence Day weekend, the president’s Myrmidons conceded that Obamacare is collapsing of its own fiscally reckless weight. Alinskyites are about power. Obama realizes he won’t have much left if Democrats are yoked to a smoldering train wreck in advance of the 2014 midterms. So he is struggling to keep it a looming train wreck. A third-string Treasury bureaucrat was thus dispatched to announce, in passing, that Obama has “waived” the employer mandate until 2015. [Emphasis added]

Perhaps in hopes of enhancing his stature as a defender of civil rights, President Obama reminisced publicly about his early years when he perceived that White people were concerned that he, a Black person, might harm them. His Department of Justice had assisted in fomenting racial tension to get Mr. Zimmerman charged with crimes impossible to prove in court based on legally cognizable evidence of what happened and why it happened. Having failed last year to find evidence that Mr. Zimmerman’s conduct had been tainted by racism, the Department of “Justice” is now again seeking “evidence” that Mr. Zimmerman committed a race crime on the basis of which it can bring Federal charges against him. That effort seems very unlikely to meet with success, but it can provide further distraction.

Is this fair comment? I think so, but doubt that
President Obama leads anything from the front.

Despite their alleged concerns for fairness and justice, President Obama and General Holder have remained oblivious to prosecutorial misconduct in securing the charges they sought, in concealing evidence useful to the defense before and during the court proceedings and claiming, post-acquittal during a televised appearance, that Mr. Zimmerman is a “murderer.” Jonathan Turley, an attorney, a liberal in the classical sense and not a librul, has written about that misconduct here and elsewhere. At the link he writes,

Corey’s office stands accused of serious allegations of withholding evidence from the defense. I have previously said that I view those allegations as highly credible and worthy of sanctions. She is also facing a whistleblower lawsuit after she fired an IT specialist who revealed that her office was withholding evidence in the Zimmerman case. [Emphasis added.]

However, Corey herself is facing allegations of unethical and unprofessional conduct. Prosecutors are supposed to be highly circumspect in their public comments. They are not supposed to attack acquitted defendants. Most refuse to do so and leave such matters to the public debate rather than join the public outcry. Corey surprised many by going on television and calling Zimmerman a “murderer” after his acquittal. Her trial counsel was slightly more circumspect and called him “lucky.” She also referred to Martin as Zimmerman’s “prey.” Clearly there are many who share these views, but it is a different matter when spoken by a prosecutor following an acquittal. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

At a minimum, Corey’s actions and comments strike me as highly unprofessional. If prosecutors lose cases and then take to the air to demonize defendants, it would allow for tremendous abuse. Nothing protects Zimmerman from criticism of course for his actions. However, prosecutors are given the unique power to seek imprisonment of defendants. They have an obligation to reinforce the legal system by publicly accepted verdict. Most prosecutors state they have believed in their case and disagreed with the decision. They refrain from calling acquitted individuals “murderers.” That type of pandering to the public can be dangerous in highly divisive case like Zimmerman’s or other controversial cases. It reminds some of us uncomfortably of the approach of disbarred former District Attorney Mike Nifong. After being widely criticized by experts for over-charging the case, it was a particularly unwise decision of Corey to take to the press and call Zimmerman a murderer. It was also unnecessary with a chorus of such comments already being made across the media front. [Emphasis added.]

Both President Obama and General Holder apparently find the high incidence of Black on White crime uninteresting and its condemnation unproductive, while seizing on the Zimmerman trial results as justifications for increased gun control and continued racist pandering. Perhaps they should consider that Black on White crime, reported by local media to some extent but rarely reported by the “legitimate media,” is very likely among the reasons many people fear that Blacks might harm them. However, they seem unlikely to do that if they agree with the MSNBC analyst in the video below, who opines that the racial situation will not improve until enough White children are killed (H/t Mad Jewess). Does President Obama have similar views? I hope not.

Racial division is probably now greater than at any time in recent memory and seems to be worsening. Unfortunately, President Obama has been the most divisive President I can remember and has thereby diminished the chances for “an honest discussion” of race. As noted by John Hinderaker at Power Line,

[T]he Obama administration and the Democratic Party consistently seek to aggravate racial divisions in order to advance their political agenda. We saw this when Democratic Congressmen falsely accused Tea Party demonstrators of using racial epithets. We see it on almost a daily basis when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee accuses Republicans of being motivated by racism whenever they try to advance conservative principles. We have seen it, to an outrageous degree, in the wake of the Zimmerman case. [Emphasis added.]

The chances for an honest discussion might improve if the “legitimate media,” President Obama and his administration were to focus on the state of the economy and the conditions in which the people — “his” people and all others in the United States — live, while ceasing to focus on perpetuating our racial problems and using them to promote favored issues irrelevant to the Zimmerman case, including “stand your ground” laws upon which the defense did not rely.

It seems unlikely that President Obama, et al, will reject racism as a favored tool because they as well as the “legitimate media” benefit politically and financially from racism and from its fomentation. That also seems to be what those claiming to negotiate for “the Palestinians” during Secretary Kerry’s peace meetings are doing in that different but similar context.

UPDATE:

President Obama is modest, industrious and a great leader who is good, historic and all that stuff. He is doubtless also the handsomest President ever, in a manly sort of way, to grace the White House. His address in honor of Trayvon Martin was “one of the highlights of the Presidency.” Thus sayeth David Brooks.

On Sunday’s broadcast of “Meet the Press” on NBC, New York Times columnist David Brooks gushed over President Barack Obama’s speech on race in the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict a week earlier.

. . . .

“I thought it was a symphony of indignation, professionalism, executive responsibility, personal feeling,” Brooks said. “It had all these different things woven together, I thought beautifully.  But it’s important to remember, race is how he thinks.” [Emphasis added.]

Hmmmm.  Mr. Brooks is partially right: It was a “highlight of” the Obama presidency and “race is how he thinks.” [Emphasis added.] What a grand way to put racism in the ash bin of history. Good jobs, President Obama and Mr. Brooks! Some fine day, the Great and Glorious One will go there as well.