Posted on 08/13/2008 1:29:52 PM PDT by alan alda
Submitted for your amusement, a tale of two columnists, as different as it is humanly possible to be in their view of the Middle East.
First, four quotes from the columnist who is second to none in his support for Israel:
1) “Yes, I love the state of Israel. It is everything a Western democracy should be at this point in history: brave, resourceful, tough, realistic, in search of peace but ready for war. It is a King Arthur of nations which is showing the rest of us how a brave and free people ought to live.…”
2) “I have no use for the [Palestine Liberation Organization]. It is not a political organization, it is a criminal organization and a very wealthy one at that. Any government which recognizes the PLO is condoning murder and extortion.”
3) “The notion of homeless Palestinians is a myth. Some people who consider themselves Palestinians are in fact homeless but a majority are not. Those Arabs who lived in and continue to live in that part of Palestine now called Jordan are obviously neither homeless nor without a country. Those Arabs who chose to remain in the area that became Israel ... are not homeless and never have been.”
4) “Solutions can never come from myths; they must be based on facts. That will not be possible, however, until people who hate Israel stop exploiting the Palestinian issue.…”
And now four quotes from the columnist who, safe to say, is the polar opposite of the gentleman quoted above:
1) “The U.S. government’s slavish support of Israel brands us as a hypocrite and is responsible for most of the hostility toward the U.S. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it's the Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, who don't want peace. That is a big lie ... Israel's goal is and always has been to take all of Palestine and to get rid of the Palestinians.”
2) “[T]here’s no group of people in the world who are more clearly victims of ethnic cleansing than the Palestinian refugees who have been rotting in refugee camps for 50 years. Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and again in 1967.”
3) “The Zionists in America are the biggest enemy of freedom of speech and freedom of the press there is.”
4) “The Israelis are to the Palestinians like a 250-pound wrestler assaulting a 4-year-old child. Without pressure from the U.S., the Israeli government will go right on killing Palestinians, taking their land and expanding Israeli settlements.
Identification time. The name of the latter writer, the fiery advocate of “ethnically cleansed” Palestinians and bitter denouncer of Zionists (whose columns are regularly featured on anti-Israel and anti-Semitic websites) is Charley Reese, former Orlando Sentinel and current King Features Syndicate columnist.
The name of the first columnist, the staunch champion of Israel and debunker of Palestinian claims, is also Charley Reese – and therein lies a great mystery, because sometime between the late 1980s and early 1990s something happened that caused Reese to turn on Israel in full fury and assume the persona of a low-rent Patrick Buchanan.
It is not exactly clear why Reese turned; some critics, among them the former editor of the Heritage Florida Jewish News, alluded to rumors about Reese’s personal life, while others have speculated that Reese simply came under the influence of several hard-core Israeli leftists whom he regularly quotes in his columns.
What is clear is that Reese is easily one of the three or four most anti-Israel columnists to regularly appear in mainstream publications, and that his animus toward Israel has become almost indistinguishable from his hostility to the United States, the country about which he recently asked, “Who would have thought that we would become the rogue nation committing acts of aggression around the globe?”
What happened with Reese wasn’t a matter of a pundit merely adjusting, tweaking, or revising his views – the best of them do it all the time. No, Reese’s about-face was something far different, something much more sudden and sweeping, something visceral rather than intellectual.
Someone who once routinely declared his love for Israel, calling it “the King Arthur of nations” doesn’t become as outspokenly hostile to the former object of his affection simply because, as he no doubt claims, he wasn’t as well-informed or hadn’t read the right books about the Middle East.
(Jason Maoz is senior editor of The Jewish Press. He can be contaced at jmaoz@jewishpress.com)
Tis a puzzlement!
Yepper, Charlie has lost it now for some time...Sad to watch it happen tho....
Sheez, Charley has been in the opinion writing business for what, 40 plus years. A handful of quotes with no dates (sometime in the late 80’s, early 90’s) not much here. Man has a right to develop his own philosophy, without inuendo about his personal life.
Big mystery. The Cold War ended, so what had been seen as part of a global struggle against communism or the Soviets, came to be seen in a different light by some people. It would have been strange and “mysterious” if that hadn’t happened.
I read the guy for 30 years and this article is dead on target.
Like many men before him, Charlie went soft and a bit senile in old age.
He is screwy. He is the Alex Jones of Journalism. A kook. Too many conservatives and libertarians have bought into the conspiracy theology designed to emasculate them and destory the West.
Odd. I never noticed his views on Israel, but I’m not a regular reader of his stuff.
He does, however, pontificate on the desirability of small government very nicely.
This sicko was very conservative when the paper started carrying his syndicated column a couple decades ago. Then, not too many years ago he ostensibly "retired".......or so it was announced, but he still keeps writing his poison liberal and anti-Semitic screeds and certain papers keep publishing him.
Of all the conservatives writers I've read, his was the most inexplicable, most vitriolic and most rapid turn-around I've ever seen. Air-ianna Huffington's overnight catapault to the dark side doesn't hold a candle to that of Charley Reese, a flip of Olympian proportions if there ever was one.
I believe he writes out of his home now somewhere deep in the Florida forest.
Leni
Damn, I had just assumed—never assume—that Reese was alaways a straight shooter.
No matter, now that he has straightened himself out, as someone pointed out, he is in the very best of company.
Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
~~~~~
Back in the early 70s when I lived in Orlando, I used to read him everyday, seemed like a real down to earth conservative then.
I see his columns now in, of all places, our 3 day a week local paper here in Bardstown. He’s completely around the bend now, LOONY, in my opinion. Not just on Israel. Perfect for the KY Standard, which, editorially, is way out in left field.
Actually wasn’t positive he was still in circulation.
Unfortunately, I have not spoken to Charley for many years, and others who knew him more recently describe him as reclusive. I could well be in error, but I attribute Charley's change of view on Israel and the Palestinians to three things:
(1) Befriendment by Palestinian activists, reflecting both a tactic on their part and the friendliness and hospitality that Arabs are known for;
(2) Coming to regard the Palestinians as oppressed, with Israel often cruel and petty against them; and
(3) A belief that America's support for Israel is a net cost and a severe strategic burden to us in both blood and treasure.
Charley Reese was so good and then he became so bad. Something very bad happened to him.
When did he change? Read him from 1990 until about 1994 and moved. Seemed to focus on constitutional rights, big government, etc. Not so much foreign affairs.
Saudi sponduliks..
I quit reading Reese years ago. I can’t remember what it was he was popping off about, but I decided then that he’s no conservative, he’s a reactionist. I have no use for him.
Hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm. Entirely possible.
Those of you that know Charlie, tell me is he of Middle East parentage? Has he grown up in America?
He is in the paper here in West Texas about 3 times a week. He is vitriolic in his stance regarding Israel and the Palestinians. It has been most apparent since the rise of Muslim terrorists, as far as timing goes.
Something definitely changed in his articles ... kinda like he began to take it personally.
Who knows? I sure do not.
On most other subjects he seems conservative and informed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.