Thank you to those of you who asked us to complain about Charley Reese’s opinion column in the Orlando Sentinel.
We are informed that the author is syndicated in 80-plus papers throughout the U.S. This is why we feel we must respond, even though the piece appears in a local newspaper. We are confident that you will find it as offensive as we do.
Please read the article, read our critique and, as always, if you agree it is biased, send a complaint (or forward our complaint) to:
Thanking you in advance,
In response to Mr. Reese:
This article is outrageous in its bias and distortion of facts. Here are only a few of the points that could be made.
“THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO KILL PALESTINIANS … SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PALESTINIANS HAVE THE AUDACITY TO DEMAND AN END TO 33 YEARS OF ILLEGAL AND MILITARY OCCUPATION.”
Israel’s shooting is in response, and only in response, to attacks with rocks, fire bombs and automatic weapons (all of which have killed innocent Israelis in the past two months). Were the Palestinians merely “making demands,” as you claim, Israel would not be shooting at them.
* * * * *
“MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, SAYS, HOWEVER, THAT ISRAEL IS A VICTIM OF AGGRESSION AND IS ONLY DEFENDING ITSELF. NOW THAT LADY IS EITHER NUTTY OR EVIL.”
One can conclude from this statement that you believe Israel to be the aggressor. Any reasonably informed journalist knows this to be false. You Are displaying either dishonesty or ignorance.
* * * * *
“I CONFESS I’M MYSTIFIED HOW DECENT AMERICANS CAN CONDONE THE BRUTALITY AND ABUSE THAT ISRAEL INFLICTS ON INNOCENT PALESTINIANS.”
Is someone shooting a gun or throwing a Molotov cocktail (or involved in a riot in which this is happening) “innocent?” The UN Security Council has said that Israel is using excessive force — but no one who has done any amount of serious investigation has said that the Palestinians are “innocent.”
* * * * *
“THE PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS … CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT. ALL OF THE PALESTINIAN DOCTORS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, HOWEVER, DISAGREE WITH THE REPORT AND SAY THEY PLAN TO ISSUE THEIR OWN REPORT. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT: A MEDICAL DISAGREEMENT.”
You are more than happy to accept the opinion of the PHR (even though Israeli doctors would certainly disagree) when they support your biased views. But when they say something you don’t like, it becomes a “medical disagreement.” This is dishonesty of the highest degree.
Your whole article distorts the facts and misleads your readers.