"Israel has shocked the world by apologizing for the death of three Egyptian officers from Israeli gunfire...[because] they calculate their own and their nation's interests like any other politicians. When it's in their interests they publicly accept blame for their actions. Better to apologize than risk losing good relations with a powerful country like Egypt, they figure."Have you got that? Israelis don't apologize because they are wrong, they apologize because they are cold and calculating like every good villain. Now if Chernus was making this statement about countries in general, it would be one thing, but like all good propagandists he singles Israel out. When America apologizes for accidental killings, Professor Chernus doesn't march onto the Huffington Post and say this. And if the Palestinians ever apologized for the civilians and soldiers they killed, he wouldn't say anything either. Still, this paragraph is a pretty good opening, as it shows exactly where Chernus is coming from: a position of irrational anger toward the Jewish state.
After lying that Israel's existence depends upon America's goodwill, Chernus dives into murkier waters with the usual meandering about Obama, peace negotiations, and his own self-proclaimed "myths:"
"Why won't we let him force Israel to make a just peace and accept a viable Palestinian state? One road to the answer begins with an Israeli official's resentful comment on the apology to Egypt: "Now we have to take the heat, as if we were responsible for the attack." "As if." Of course Israeli leaders won't actually feel any responsibility. That would violate their fundamental code, the myth of Israel's insecurity: Israel must always be presented as the victim..."So let's start with this anonymous official's comment, which Chernus takes like gold. First of all, I suggest you take a look at the context. The official was saying that apologizing would be like admitting that Israel did it on purpose, which they didn't. Same thing with the Mavi Marmara fiasco, Israel doesn't want to apologize not because they see themselves as blameless, but because doing so would meant that they were in the wrong and Turkey was in the right, which isn't true. Chernus doesn't want to see things from Israel's point of view, so of course he ignores this alternative interpretation in favor of his usual bullshit pseudo-psychology. Israel's leaders will take responsibility for what they are responsible for (at least as much as any other politician) but not what they aren't responsible for.
Click below to continue, as the most blatant lies are yet to come.
Professor Chernus now attempts to rewrite history, even thought it only happened less than a week ago:
"Apart from the Israeli apology, the whole incident was presented here with the same old script: Palestinian "terrorists" attack and kill Israelis, like a bolt out of the blue. Israel justifiably strikes back, as any nation would do when attacked, and kills some Arabs."Boo hoo hoo. Unfortunately for Chernus, that's basically what happened. Out of what had been a relatively peaceful period, terrorists launched four different coordinated attacks on Israeli civilian targets. Now it is true that a day before this the IDF killed two terrorists while they were firing a rocket into Israel, but if you believe that an attack like this can be planned and executed within 24 hours I have a bridge to sell you. Chernus would prefer to ignore this basic logic, and instead apologize for terrorism, just like a good Huffington Post blogger. And he apologizes really, really hard:
"Years of Israeli occupation of Gaza and then, when the Israeli soldiers left, more years of Israel's strangulating economic control; the return of Israeli soldiers in the brutal attack of December, 2008, which destroyed so much of what the Gazans had rebuilt; the Israeli (and American) efforts to deny Hamas its rightful place as the elected leaders of the Palestinian parliament, provoking a deadly civil war; the persistent Israeli efforts to demonize Gaza and its Hamas rulers, focusing all the world's attention on the West Bank and its Fatah leaders as the only Palestinians worth negotiating with; the Israeli charades that ensure no really serious negotiations with any Palestinians will occur, meaning there will be no viable Palestinian state."Yep, if you take a good long sniff, you'll smell the hypocrisy. This is a guy who five minutes ago was screeching how the Israelis believe they are never responsible for their own actions, are always the victims, and are perfectly blameless. And yet in this laundry list of excuses it becomes clear that he believes all of that applies to the Palestinians instead. I'm not going to bother to refute them all, except that it's a joke that he seriously believes that these are legitimate excuse for shooting up a civilian bus. He should have taken MJ Rosenberg's tactic and not even tried.
"They come out of years of frustration, as the Israelis continue to prevent Palestinians from exercising the right of national self-determination, which the Israelis claim as the justification for their own Jewish state."Who rejected the UN Partition Plan? Oh that's right, the Palestinians. Who rejected peace offers in 2000, 2002 and 2008? Oh that's right, the Palestinians. Who are against the unilateral declaration of independence? Oh that's right, Hamas. The rulers of Gaza. Very obvious information that one would think a "Professor" probably ought to know. But what's more likely is that he does know all of this, but prefers not to remind his audience of such inconvenient facts. Or as he would call them, "myths."
After playing the race card, he proceeds to insult everyone's intelligence, including his own:
"It's this U.S. policy, not Israeli policy, that really keeps the Palestinians stateless and oppressed. If that oppression drives a tiny number of Palestinians to violence, the ultimate responsibility lies with America's failure -- our failure -- to relieve their oppression."The good news that only Palestinian propagandists actually believe that "only a tiny minority" of Palestinians actually endorse violence against Israel. If you are one of those people who still believe that, here's some reading. Though it is true that a majority of Palestinians flip-flop on their views toward violence (as opposed to their desire to destroy Israel) it is not and has never been a "tiny number" of Palestinians who commit or endorse that violence. Do you really think four different attacks could have occurred simultaneously if that were the case? Is Professor Chernus really that stupid? Or is he happy enough wrapped up in the world of his own myths?
That's it for now. You get the idea.