It's the same story in the housing market. Newspapers, television commentators, civil rights leaders, academics and politicians see racial discrimination as the cause for black mortgage loan applicants being rejected more frequently than white applicants. In 2000, black applicants were turned down for prime mortgage loans twice as often as whites; however, white applicants were turned down nearly twice as often as Asian-Americans.
The racial discrimination explanation requires that we believe that white bankers racially discriminate not only against blacks but against whites, as well. It also requires that we believe that black-owned banks are in cahoots with white-owned banks, because they, too, turn down black mortgage applicants more often than white applicants. The true explanation is not rocket science. Lenders prefer to lend to people who will pay them back. Average credit scores are higher among whites than blacks and higher among Asian-Americans than whites.
During the early 20th century, there were mass migrations of blacks from the South. Both the black-owned Chicago Defender and the Urban League offered published advice to their less tutored brethren, such as: "Don't use vile language in public places." "Don't throw garbage in the backyard or alley or keep dirty front yards." "Do not carry on loud conversations in street cars and public places." Jews, Germans and Irish made similar appeals to acculturate their ill-mannered cousins. These efforts produced positive results over the years.
That has changed with today's multiculturalism vision. Efforts to get minority groups to acculturate to the linguistic, dress and other norms of the larger society are seen negatively by multiculturalists as a form of cultural imperialism. Intellectuals and academics call for celebrating diversity. That means wearing one's trousers low enough to see one's butt, men wearing a head full of pigtails, and using poor language that's sometimes vulgar are part of the liberal's vision of "celebrating diversity." Then there's the "acting white" charge, when black youngsters who conduct themselves according to the norms of the larger society are criticized and often assaulted by their presumably "acting black" peers.
Sowell concludes that our nation is painting itself into a corner when it comes to thinking about racial problems. Whole cities, of which Detroit is a classic example, have been devastated physically, socially and economically by racial problems -- which cannot be discussed honestly by elected officials, people in the media or academics, who do not want to become pariahs or, even worse, lose their jobs. This moral paralysis is paid in blood -- mostly the blood of black people preyed upon by criminals, though in recent years, there have been violent mob attacks on white people in shopping malls, on beaches, on public transportation vehicles and in other public places. These attacks often go unreported, are minimized or are reported without detail, even though the attackers shouted their hatred for white people. The use of sufficient force to stop these attacks would be called "excessive" in the media and by politicians or "community leaders."
My own conclusion is that black people waged a successful civil rights struggle against gross discrimination. It's white and black liberals, intellectuals, academics and race hustlers who have created our greatest hurdle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obama, Netanyahu face wide differences on nuclear Iran, chemical Syria

President Barack Obama was greeted on his arrival in Israel midday Wednesday, March 20 with unprecedented ceremonial honors and fanfare, but after the handshakes and the drive through the sunny, flag-draped streets of Jerusalem, he and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were to sit down for tough talk on their yawning differences on three issues: nuclear Iran, Syria and the first use of chemical weapons, and the Palestinians. Expressions of devout commitment to a historic alliance and the president’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security will be left outside the door in the public domain. Obama is to be confronted with the fallout for Israel of the policies he pursued in his first term, especially his backing for the Arab Revolt which erupted in December 2010.
1. Since then, Iran has been allowed to reach a point just short of the development of two types of nuclear bombs, one fueled by enriched uranium and the other by plutonium.

2. Regardless of repeated fruitless endeavors, President Obama still holds to diplomacy and sanctions for achieving a breakthrough with Iran over its nuclear program. Circles in Washington and Jerusalem maintain that the gap between Washington and Jerusalem is over nothing more than the timeline estimated for Iran to attain a nuclear bomb capacity. But this is just a US-Israeli maneuver for giving their diplomats and intelligence officials space to pour honey and pretend the two governments can still sort out their differences.
This maneuver has been used by self-styled “nuclear experts” in both capitals as a PR exercise to cover up a very real rift.  They criticize the Netanyahu government as intransigent for insisting on Iran’s total cessation of 20 percent uranium enrichment (a step before weapons grade), the shutdown of its Fordo enrichment plan and removal from the country of low-enriched uranium.

Israel must give way on these demands for the sake of an accommodation with Tehran, they say.
This view is supported by the “strategists” who maintain Israel is not up to the military challenge of preempting a nuclear Iran and must rely on US cooperation. Therefore, it is important to trust President Obama when he declares that his administration will not allow Iran to attain a nuclear bomb.

So firmly has this viewpoint taken root in the mass media, that deviant opinions are discredited as mistaken, even when they come from highly regarded and well-informed individuals like Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi and one of his predecessors, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, which they support with a whole battery of updated facts and educated evaluations.

3.  The infamous Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah alliance has not suffered the slightest crack despite Obama’s promise to work it loose. Many Middle Easterners find it is stronger than ever. For instance, whereas before the Syrian war, Hizballah commanded a well-trained 30,000-strong army which held the whip hand in Beirut,  this former militia has expanded into a veritable Shiite army of 50,000 combat-seasoned troops who are  fighting in Syria for Bashar Assad alongside the Iranian Al Qods Brigades.
The Hizballah militia has grown into a formidable army.
4. President Obama, who long held the belief that Assad’s fall was “imminent,” no longer mentions this possibility. Indeed, before he set out on his Middle East trip, US sources in Washington were whispering the latest intelligence forecast that Syrian rebels would control half of Damascus by the end of the summer and so replicate the Aleppo partition.

5. In the 48 hours leading up to the president’s arrival in Israel, the Syrian Air Force for the first time bombed targets inside Lebanon (March 18) and fired a Scud missile armed with a chemical warhead which exploded in Aleppo on March 19. While Israel is acutely concerned by this escalation just across its frontiers, the Obama administration has not reacted – evidence of another major gap between Washington and Jerusalem.
6.  Israel feels it has been dropped in the middle of a dangerous vortex set up by the US-backed Arab Revolts in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt and gaining in momentum from the bloody tumult in Syria. The Jewish state is now beset with hostile Islamist regimes in which al Qaeda and Iran are increasingly embedded.
 If King Abdullah’s throne in Jordan succumbs to the wave of unrest set up by the Muslim Brotherhood there too, Israel will be completely surrounded.

7.  On peace talks with the Palestinians, the Obama administration has made no headway for bringing the Palestinians to the negotiating table.
In short, the omens at the outset of the US president’s talks in Israel are not encouraging.
The US mainstream media campaign to discredit Israeli intelligence findings and estimates on Iran’s nuclear progress has not abated and indeed intensified in time for the Obama visit.
Furthermore, in the absence of an administration reaction, Israeli officials made a point of confirming the onset of chemical warfare in Syria. This contingency the Obama administration had pledged would bring forth US intervention.

These differences cannot be accounted for by claims of personal antipathy between the US president and Israeli prime minister. They deeply affect matters of substance and policy.


4aGerald M. Steinberg: Netanyahu is from Mars, Obama is from Venus

Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama have spent four years bickering, instead of co-operating on policies that will best serve Israeli and American interests. As they begin Act Two — with both leaders having won fresh mandates from their respective voters — will they learn to get along?
When they meet this week, the Israeli Prime Minister and the American President will need to find a middle ground between their very different perceptions of international politics. The Israeli leader is a hard-core realist (or pessimist, if you prefer), who sees the dangers of what Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) described as the “war of all against all” in the anarchy of international politics. Israel stands out as a solitary and vulnerable Jewish state in a hostile and dangerous Middle Eastern environment, whereby survival depends on a powerful military able to defeat all threats.
Obama, on other hand, is a liberal democrat who takes an idealist (or optimistic) approach. Like Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), he believes that disputes generally can be overcome through dialogue and compromise. For Obama, the use of military force is an undesirable last resort, reserved for a few sociopaths such as bin Laden, Gaddafi and the leaders of the Taliban. He has given priority to ending America’s military role in Iraq and Afghanistan, and renewed U.S. participation in the UN Human Rights Council, citing its lofty principles, rather than the unpleasant reality.
This basic contrast is central to understanding the differences between the two leaders on how best to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama stresses negotiations and engagement, and after four years of failure, he has not given up. In his recent State of the Union Address, Obama again declared that, “the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution.”
In contrast, Netanyahu, as a Hobbesian realist, recently declared: “Words alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail.”
Netanyahu’s realism also reflects the history of anti-Semitism and Jewish vulnerability. In his 2011 address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu declared: “Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.”
Political Realism also explains Netanyahu’s caution regarding the Palestinians. Tangible security assets — territory and strategic depth to reduce vulnerability to attack — are to be carefully protected, and expectations of breakthroughs toward stable peace are kept realistically minimal. Most Arab leaders are viewed as ideologically committed to the same mindset that caused them to reject the very existence of the Jewish state when it came into being in 1948.
In addressing the Knesset in May 2011, Netanyahu declared: “What were they yelling in Gaza yesterday? They were shouting that they want to return to Jaffa [within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.] What did the leader of Hamas say yesterday? ‘We want to see the end of the Zionist agenda.’ ” Any accommodation would require an explicitly stated realization on the part of Arab leaders and societies that destroying Israel is no longer their goal, and that their own vital interests are best served by an end to conflict, as has been the case with Jordan and (for now) Egypt.
Netanyahu’s negotiation strategy is based on reciprocity: Unilateral concessions are dismissed as counterproductive and do not bring peace. Four years ago, in response to intense pressure from Obama, Netanyahu declared support for a “two-state solution,” marking the first time that a Likud prime minister had accepted the principle of Palestinian sovereignty. Netanyahu also agreed to a 10-month freeze on settlement-construction activity. In return, he demanded Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-
state of the Jewish people, in order to create a stable foundation for negotiations. But when Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did not meet Netanyahu’s conditions, the freeze ended, and four years have since passed without change. Obama obtained nothing from forcing Netanyahu’s hand.
As Obama prepares to visit Israel for the first time as president, there are indications that he and Netanyahu have found some common ground. Netanyahu’s new government will include ministers who see the dangers of his hard-line status quo on the West Bank, and are prepared for change. Meanwhile, American optimists have been confronted with case studies that support the argument for Hobbesian realism, from North Korea to Iran, and from the riots in Egypt to the killing fields of Syria.
Perhaps for the first time, the two leaders understand and respect their different perspectives on these immensely complex issues.
National Post
Gerald.Steinberg@biu.ac.il
Professor Gerald Steinberg teaches international diplomacy at Bar Ilan University, Israel and is the president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institute.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------