June 30, 2009
Anti-Semitism in Chávez’s Venezuela
On January 30, 2009 fifteen heavily armed men stormed the Tiferet Israel synagogue in the Mariperez neighborhood of Caracas. They held down two guards, robbed the premises, and desecrated the temple, throwing the Torah and other religious paraphernalia to the floor and painting graffiti on the walls: “Out, Death to All”; “Damned Israel, Death”; “666” with a drawing of the devil; “Out Jews”; “We don’t want you, assassins”; a star of David, an equal sign, and a swastika.
The event, though shocking, was neither isolated nor unprecedented. Over the past four years, Venezuela has witnessed alarming signs of state-directed anti-Semitism, including a 2005 Christmas declaration by President Hugo Chávez himself: “The World has enough for everybody, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, and of those that expelled Bolívar from here and in their own way crucified him. . . . have taken control of the riches of the world.”
In late 2004 the police stormed Hebraica, a Jewish social, educational, and sports center, ostensibly to search for guns and explosives. No weapons were found. But finding them may never have been the purpose of the raid: it coincided with the beginning of Hugo Chávez’s official visit to Tehran. Thus, Sammy Eppel, director of the Human Rights Commission of the Venezuelan B’nai B’rith, poignantly interpreted the event: “Chávez was showing Iran: ‘This is how I deal with my Jews.’”
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:29 PM | Permalink
Comments
Holy fucking shit. I can't even start to tell you how ridiculously inaccurate that article is. A couple of points:
Predictably, any instances of criticism of Israeli policies are goint to be dealt with as Anti-semitism. This canard about Chavez and Chavismo being anti-semitic has been debunked several times in the past, but it comes backs very often. See http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2805.
Not mentioned in that article was that the attack on the synagogue was perpetrated by a band of thieves led by a night guard that had worked at the place for years and that used the antisemitic slogans so they could throw off the police investigation. They were captured a few days later with a hundred thousand dollars they had stolen from the synagogue's vault.
After the attack on the synagogue, Chavez himself talked live on TV to Elias Farache, president of one of Venezuela's main Jewish associations and gave him his word that he was not going to tolerate antisemitic attacks in his country and that he was going to protect the Jewish community.
Farache himself denied the government’s supposed culpability in the attack, saying, 'We do not accuse the government. It would not be logical for us to be attacked by a government that is liberal, … that has above all always been in favor of minorities"
Also, the article does not mention that Fred Pressner, president of representative of Venezuela's Jewish community repeatedly complained to the Wiesenthal Center asking them to consult with the Venezuelan Jewish community before accusing Chavez of anti-semitism:
http://www.forward.com/articles/1874/
Venezuela has always been and still is a nation that welcomes all religions and ethnicities. Pointing the finger at Chavez's government for some isolated antisemitic events in the street while ignoring the fact that for many years (and before Chavez was elected) there have been small groups with atisemitic leanings (usually formed by conservative ultracatholics)is disingenuous, to say the least.
Inform yourselves a little more about the situation before you start linking to such atrocious garbage.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 30, 2009 5:08:27 PM
Also they conveniently forget to mention that Chavez kicked Norberto Ceresole out on the country in 1999 and had publicly disavowed him. Chavez has been quoted as saying that "they agreed on a few things (probably on Latin American nationalism) and disagreed on others".
And of course, they also accuse chavismo of harboring homophobic sentiments when mild homophobia is widespread in Venezuelan (and in general, Latin American) society. It does not mention that his government is arguably the one that has done the most, by far, to increase acceptance of gays and that he himself has repeatedly called for acceptance of all types of minorities.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 30, 2009 5:15:00 PM
Apparently Honduras doesn't seem to exist in the map for 3qd editors. How about letting us know what you think about the military coup going on right now? At least with 1% of the attention you have been dedicating to Iran...
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 30, 2009 5:17:29 PM
Well, Pepito, following your spirited defense of Ahmedinijhad, its hardly surprising that you stand with Chavez, whose anti-Semitism is a matter of public record. What you call a refutation of his speech against those who crucified Jesus lamely states:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2805
“Here's a translation of the full passage from Chavez's speech (VoltaireNet, 1/18/06):
“”The world has an offer for everybody but it turned out that a few minorities--the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia--they took possession of the riches of the world,…””
“While it's true that anti-Semites often accuse Jews of killing Jesus, it's not fair to assert that anyone who refers to the crucifixion of Jesus is attacking the Jewish people”
Oh yes Pepito, we all buy that, don’t we!
What is the difference between criticizing Israel and anti-Semitism? When a president criticizes Israeli actions in Gaza that’s legitimate, even if one-sided. When a president ostentatiously embraces the anti-Semitic Iranian president and the leaders in the Iranian colonies in Lebanon and Gaza – that’s what confirms his enmity to Jews.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124114549461976071.html
The Zionist plot to invade Venezuela
Antisemitismo en Venezuela o el imperialismo prepara la invasion
http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/a51013.html
Venezuela gov stages press conference at attacked synagogue without coordination Jewish leaders;
Venezuela gov prevents performance of “Fiddler On The Roof”
http://www.anajuliajatar.com/index.php/2009/02/27/discriminacion-y-antisemitismo-en-venezu
Posted by: aguy109 | Jul 1, 2009 2:21:22 AM
aguy:
I understand that your love for Israel prevents you from getting your head out of your ass sometimes, but anybody with a little objectivity could see that there's no anti-semitism in any of Chavez's statements. If you were paying more attention to the history of a region you seem to barely understand, you'd know that Liberation Theology, of which Chavez is a fan, routinely accused the Latin American rich elites of being 'Christ killers', with no mention of the Jews at all. Maybe your paranoia keeps you from thinking clear, but all that has come from Chavez's government is criticism of Zionism, which is not the same thing as anti-semitism.
By the way, the cheap shot at that Aporrea article you linked makes me think you don't understand Spanish. Why provide a link that actually undermines your position? The article does not mention a 'Zionist plot to invade Venezuela' but the supposed imperialist (read U.S.)drive to take over the resources of the continent.It does establish a parallel (evident for many people in the region,as for me) between Israel and its main benefactor: their expansionism, their presumption of having the moral upper ground because they are 'democracies', etc., but no alleged Zionist plot to take over Venezuela is mentioned.
The article also states the known fact that Israel has helped the U.S. in most of their destabilization efforts and dirty wars in Latin America(which shouldn't come as a surprise either, after all they're political allies).It mentions the support by Israel of the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua and its sales of weapons to the death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador It also states clearly that "we are not combating the Jewish people, but are fighting Zionists". If you are conflating Judaism and Zionism, you're not doing any favors to your cause in front of the world, I'm sorry to say. And if you happen to be one of those people in the 'West' that equates the use of the clearly defined and perfectly usable word 'Zionism' with an instance of anti-semitism then I guess there's no point even in having this conversation.
Aporrea has published one mildly anti-semitic article in the past (that the editors apparently, in their haste to publish, didn't read) which was taken out of the site within hours and for which they made a public apology.
Ana Julia Jatar is well known for her over-the-top anti-Chavism, which drives her to twist the truth or to print rumors on occasion. The president of the orchestra involved denied the accusations of the 'very reliable' venezuelan media (which, anybody mildly objective living in Venezuela would find outrageously biased), saying that "although the higest subsidy for the orchestra comes from the government, they have never opposed or conditioned the participation of the orchestra in any show". The performance of Fiddler on the roof went on without a glitch, you'll be sorry to know.
As for my 'spirited defense' of Ahmadinejad, what are you talking about? What I said was that Mousavi is no better than him, that no matter who wins the theocracy is not in danger and that Ahmadinejad has the support of the Iranian majority (a fact) because of his 'populist' policies that focus on primary needs. Personally, although I dislike his religious conservatism and his denial of the Holocaust, I also happen to think that he has consistently made most of his western interviewers look like fools or assholes.
"When a president ostentatiously embraces the anti-Semitic Iranian president and the leaders in the Iranian colonies in Lebanon and Gaza – that’s what confirms his enmity to Jews."
I guess you don't understand the meaning of realpolitik. Guilt by association, of course. But if for you Lebanon and Gaza are just 'iranian colonies' it just confirms to me what I've been saying all along. And please, don't make laugh with that Melanie Kirkpatrick article. Post something more serious.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 1, 2009 10:43:42 AM
By the way, aguy: I heard the speech myself at the time he gave it. it was abudantly clear for anybody who heard it that he was talking about rich elites and not Jews. But at the same time I told myself: 'there's no way that the 'Western media' is not going to twist this around and accuse him of anti-semitism'. Voila. Even though Fred Pressner, the president of the Federation of Venezuelan Jews repeatedly asked the Simon Wiesenthal center to refrain from commenting on a situation which they clearly were taking out of context (they never even answered him).
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 1, 2009 10:53:09 AM
If any of you guys understand Spanish I advise you to enter the forums of Noticiero Digital (http://www.noticierodigital.com/) or Noticias24 (http://www.noticias24.com/), wildly popular sites for the Venezuelan opposition. "Death to that fucking monkey Chavez" is the mildest epithet you're likely to find.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 1, 2009 10:58:20 AM
Anything about Honduras. please?
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 1, 2009 11:06:57 AM
There is a big difference between criticizing Israel and anti-semitism: Does criticizing Iran make one anti-Muslim? Does criticizing American foreign policy make one anti-American? It wouldn't be very democratic if it did. We're supposed to police our officials! What seems really clear to me is that we are getting but a fraction of a fraction of a story out of both Iran and Venezuela (and, as Pepito points out, no story at all from other places such as Honduras). Likewise, there is a fine line between news and propaganda. Chavez is speaking to his constituency--predominantly mixed-race (estimated only about 20 percent Caucasian), Roman Catholic (over 90 percent)--and suggesting that they be much more skeptical in their devotion to the leaders of that world, it seems to me. His point is valid--the vast majority of wealth is in the hands of the very few, and I bet most Americans would be shocked and appalled at the levels of poverty happening in Venezuela, at the rapacious privitization of public resource, and so on. Never mind the vastly different language, and historical and cultural lens through which Chavez speaks and is received, of which Americans are by and large ignorant.
Meanwhile, there are only about 15,000 Jews (2006 estimate) living in Venezuela, a country of nearly 27 million people (that's .05 percent of the population). With such a drop in the bucket, it really seems far-fetched to imagine that, with the innumerable problems facing the Venezuelan leadership, that they would waste a relative breath creating an international scandal of such proportions. It seems much more likely to me that the Roman Catholic Church and Western capitalist pressures would be the target of such criticism.
Posted by: Lambness | Jul 1, 2009 12:05:11 PM
" Los innumerables análisis que indican que Estados Unidos pretende convertir a Colombia en la nueva Palestina de América......América Latina ha sido testigo y víctima directa del sionismo......No combatimos a los judíos, combatimos a los sionistas. "
All these slurs are supposed to generate popular hostility against Jews/Zionists, and since Zionism is the "nationalism" of the Jews and the overwhelming majority of Jews in the world are pro-Zionist, then this distinction doesn't cut.
When Chavez speaks out against Crist killers he knows very well that his words will be picked around the world, so he can't hide behind any idiosyncratic meaning that you claim such words may have amongst liberation theologists.
And you still don't explain why an anti -clerical like Chavez should support the oppressive theistic Iranian regime.
By the way, Pepito, how is life in the Great Satan, USA where you have chosen to make your home?
Posted by: aguy109 | Jul 1, 2009 12:37:47 PM
Zionism is a criminal, racist ideology. I really hope that overwhelming majority of Jews in the world stop supporting it. If the distinction as you imply, is non-existent, then the very use of the word 'anti-semitism' becomes nothing but a tool to shut up anybody who criticizes the Israeli government. You, aguy, are asking for the impossible: a free pass for the current and past crimes of your country because of the suffering that some of your ancestors went through 70 years ago. How long do you think you guys can keep the monopoly of victimhood?
You are wrong to think that you can ignore any regional nuance just because the opinion makers around the world claim the right to misinterpret statements as they see fit. Chavez doesn't have to bend over backwards just because the group that claims to have been the target happens to be paranoid and is willing to create rumors for their political ends. I don't see why else would the Wiesental center engage on quote-mining that is tantamount to fabrication but as a political tool to quiet down critcism of Israeli policies.
As I said before, it all boils down to realpolitik. Why does the U.S., 'champion of democracy' and the 'indispensable country (TM)' openly support and embraces the Saudi regime, arguably mure oppresive and theistic than the iranian government?
Life in the 'Great Satan' (your words, not mine, I'm not that simpleminded) is like anywhere else I lived. You're free to express your dissent but at the same time there are things nobody dare say. I don't see your point. Do you mean I shouldn't criticize the place I live in? Should I be a good soldier and march in step?
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 1, 2009 1:55:42 PM
I didn't think aguy was asking for a free pass. I don't know what the Simon Wiesenthal Center did with remarks from that speech, but it's understandable how cozying up to Ahmadinejad and talking about the people who crucified Christ just MIGHT be interpreted as anti-Semitic.
Pepito, it isn't just ancestors suffering 70 years ago. It's hundreds and hundreds of years of pogroms and persecution in Europe and Russia and other places that Jews have suffered from. Eastertime Passion plays accompanied with the cry of deicide often brought on pogroms.
I believe there is a rise in anti-Semitism in the world, including the US, especially now, in the wake of Gaza and during hard economic times. I hear all kinds of anti-Semitic sentiment, but if one names it as such, one is then told that "no one can criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite."
It's one thing to criticize Israeli government policies and actions, but when people throw in all the old canards about Jews (substitute Zionists) control the media, the banks, blah blah blah, people express their anti-Semitism under the guise of criticizing Israel.
It's pretty revolting that extremists are using the plight of the Palestinians -- which many Jews in Israel and the US are trying to ameliorate -- to serve their own twisted political ends, seeking a single scapegoat to account for the mess the world is in.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 1, 2009 3:26:34 PM
"but it's understandable how cozying up to Ahmadinejad and talking about the people who crucified Christ just MIGHT be interpreted as anti-Semitic."
It's not understable if you have enough information about this topic. If you happen to be ignorant of Latin American politics and the Venezuelan process in particular, I don't think you have the right to misinterpret anything. It's certainly not Latin America's fault if the citizens of Europe or the U.S. have such a limited and misinformed view of their countries.
Why pick quotes to characterize something that is clearly not antisemitic as something that is? Why would the whole mainstream media in the West jump in the bandwagon and publish deliberately incomplete quotes? Do you think that was an honest mistake? I probably would if it didn't happen so often. Everytime there's Venezuela news in the Western media, you can be sure that they would do everything possible to somehow make it about Chavez, depicting him, as usual, in an unflattering light. No nuance or complexity, just the brainless, FOX-Newish 'bad guy' implication. There's a clear intention to depict Venezuela as a dangerous, dictatorial narcostate that hates the liberal West and its friends. To me the reason is obvious: Chavez's anticapitalism is bad for business, ergo, let's throw all the shit we can at Venezuela, lest his influence extends somewhere else. That's behind the stereotypical fantasy created in the U.S. of a Good left/bad left split in Latin America. The good left represented by pro-business Lula of Brazil, of course.
You don't have to tell me about the pogroms and the plight of the Jews for centuries, I have read plenty abou it and believe me, I condemn it as every decent person should. However, that doesn't contradict my point at all: Israel's defenders are using the Holocaust as an excuse to deflect criticism of their atrocious policies in Palestine.
As far as I know, Louise, nobody here is saying that Jews control the banks or media or whatever. It's really tiresome to have to make people know that I am not a follower of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' everytime I criticize Israel's policies. You cannot deny however, that for many years the news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 'the West' has been biased towards Israel.
I don't know which extremists you're referring to in your comment, but Chavez is no extremist. Sure his rhetoric is sometimes bellicose, but his policies are hardly 'extreme'.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 1, 2009 4:15:54 PM
Pepito, I've been following this thread, and I never knew until now that you were a philosemite. Well, one sometimes comes out late. I was deceived by some of your affinities, and not a few of your words, into thinking you might have the European Disease. It's all cleared up now, in any case.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 1, 2009 6:40:36 PM
Aguy's quote, translated:
"The analysis indicates that the United States intends to turn Colombia into the new Palestinian America ...... Latin America has been witness and victim of Zionism ...... don't fight the Jews, fight the Zionists."
Is this correct, Pepito and aguy?
Posted by: Lambness | Jul 1, 2009 8:04:32 PM
Pepito,
Think this McClatchy story is biased?
">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/70272.html">
mcclatchy
How about this Fair article?
fair
Even if Chavez weren't bellicose, when he's allied himself with Ahmadinejad, people believe that he is indeed an extremist because that's an extreme thing to do. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is not the wisest approach to friendship or international relations.
I don't think you can blame people for reacting as they did to the crucified Christ remark. You'd think a head of state would know such a remark would be "interpreted," or, according to you, misinterpreted, as it was by many people.
I don't know if this is true: "Israel's defenders are using the Holocaust as an excuse to deflect criticism of their atrocious policies in Palestine." I think Norman Finkelstein would agree with you, but what proof do you have that the Israeli government is doing that?
As far as Western media bias in favor of Israel, it's corporate-controlled media, favoring the policies of the United States and its allies. The Internet is changing that, with writers like Glenn Greenwald here or Gideon Levy in Israel giving different accounts than the mainstream press. Also, some people are both defenders of Israel AND critics of Israel's Palestinian policies. Like other countries, Israel is guilty of human rights violations and other lousy things. But only in the case of Israel do extremists start suggesting that the country may have no right to exist.
I am perhaps overly sensitive on this topic right now, in light of the murder at the Holocaust Museum, truly sickening revelations on US torture policies, etc., ad nauseam. It saddens me that people here end up fighting with one another and being rude to one another over the things that governments are carrying out. Divide and conquer. It's not going to serve any purpose to stage virtual reenactments of Middle East and global conflicts here.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 1, 2009 9:55:23 PM
Regardless of how Chavez' remarks may be interpreted by us, he wasn't speaking to us. He was speaking to his constituency--the people who voted for him and for whom he administers. Don't you think that it is our job to figure out the context of leaders' words, rather than demand that leaders the world over second-guess outside cultures' innumerable possible interpretations and edit accordingly?
Posted by: Lambness | Jul 1, 2009 11:57:41 PM
Lambness, that's a very good point. Let's apply it to our leaders in an arena a little less fraught than whether a notable leader in the Southern Hemisphere is making common cause with Ahmadinejad. So. When John McCain said it took an income of 250K to be middle class -- this in a nation where only 6% earn over 100K -- non-US citizens listening in should consider that we have a high standard of living in this country and buy more stuff than we can afford, and not just be content to get their minds boggled because they may only earn several dollars a day. Looked at from the standpoint of someone desperately poor in Bihar, it's an odious remark, as it is from the standpoint of someone living on a service income in Biloxi. But one of those people can better process the remark than the other. So it is by how it sounded to that person that the remark should be judged. Even so, it was a bad thing to say, because speech with that much classism in it is a form of hate speech, just as carefully coded hate speech is a form of hate speech.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 12:41:14 AM
Lambness,
You ask:
Don't you think that it is our job to figure out the context of leaders' words, rather than demand that leaders the world over second-guess outside cultures' innumerable possible interpretations and edit accordingly?
No. Did anyone think the Pope's remarks on Islam should be interpreted according to the group of "theologians" he was addressing?
newyorker
I can sympathize with Chavez in his resistance to what he calls US
"imperialism," but I think he has about zero credibility as a serious leader after befriending Ahmadinejad. I think Holocaust deniers have a screw loose. Why would Chavez form a strong alliance with the man? It's difficult to take his remarks seriously, however benign or offensive they may be to those outside his "culture."
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 2, 2009 12:55:08 AM
Elatia, I'm willing to consider your points in earnest, and admit that I am by no means an expert on global politics. The patronizing tone really isn't necessary.
Posted by: Lambness | Jul 2, 2009 2:45:28 AM
Lambness, sorry! It was 1 a.m. -- not an hour for coming off quite as one means to. There may be something inherently patronizing-sounding about analogizing, too. If I had said, "A bridge is to a river as a tunnel is to a mountain," it would have sounded haughtily instructive, too. I meant what I said but not how it sounded. Thanks for overlooking the latter.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 8:55:20 AM
I hope you are kidding, Elatia. I have never said here anything that could be considered anti-semitic, unless by that you mean criticism of the State of Israel. You know what problem say about the problem when you assume. In any case, maybe it's the fact that English is not my mother tongue, but I am not sure whether you are being sarcastic. I don't really know which affinities you are referring to, but just to clarify for the nth time: I believe the Holocaust was one of the most horrendous episodes of mankind and it will always follow us, to remind our species of our awful past .
That being said, this just goes to show you the sorry state of world affairs now that if I am to criticize Israel I have to start by making it abundantly clear that I am not an antisemite. I don't think you have to make any clarification like that before you criticize any other nation in the world, included the U.S.
Calling me a philosemite might well be a stretch, but then, I don't think I am 'philo-anything'. I don't believe in the intrinsic superiority and of one group of people over another, that's all. I don't see how or why you might have gotten the wrong idea.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 9:18:37 AM
Lambness:
The correct quote reads:
"The analysis indicates that the United States intends to turn Colombia into the new Palestinian America ...... Latin America has been witness and victim of Zionism ...... we are not fighting the Jews, we are fighting the Zionists."
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 9:19:46 AM
Yes, Louise. Everything has an implicit bias. If I show you an analysis of Chavez's policies written by a pro-Chavez journalist it will be biased too. Nobody is immune. You seem to be under the impression that the 'Western Press' is unbiased and always adheres to ethical standards. Many times that's not the case. Venezuela is an interest of mine because I was raised there. I understand that country's history very well, and the opinions of an idiot U.S. hack with an ideological axe to grind are not as authoritative for me as they are for you. Yes, Chavez believes Ahmadinejad won fair and square. Although Ahmadinejad is a social conservative and Chavez is clearly the opposite, they have a common view of economic affairs, that's well-known. But it seems to me that Ahmadinejad's antisemitism and Holocaust denial are the only thing that matters to Tyler Bridges and he can't see past that. So he resorts to guilt by association. Tyler Bridges has been predicting the demise of the Venezuelan economy for years, doubtless informed by his liberal 'pro-free markets’ bias while the country was growing at a healthy rate of 8% to 9% a year. Not only that, but he has been reporting all along that it was in trouble amid the boom. I'm sorry, but he's not a model of objectivity. Although Chavez is friendly with Ahmadinejad personally, if you read the official statement of the Venezuelan government on Iran’s election no part of it expresses siding with Ahmadinejad:
‘El Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, a nombre del pueblo de Venezuela, ratifica su reconocimiento al pueblo y al gobierno de la República Islámica de Irán por la extraordinaria jornada democrática que protagonizaron el pasado viernes 12 de junio, cuando tuvieron lugar unas elecciones presidenciales que registraron niveles históricos de participación popular y resultaron en la reelección del presidente Mahmud Ahmadineyad.
El Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela manifiesta su más firme rechazo a la feroz e infundada campaña de descrédito que desde el exterior se ha desatado contra las instituciones de la República Islámica de Irán, con el objetivo de enturbiar el clima político de ese hermano país.
Desde Venezuela denunciamos estos actos de injerencia en los asuntos internos de la República Islámica de Irán, al tiempo que exigimos el cese inmediato de estas maniobras de intimidación y desestabilización contra la Revolución Islámica.
El pueblo y el gobierno de Venezuela albergamos la certeza de que el pueblo iraní sabrá solucionar sus asuntos internos y continuará la senda de la Revolución Islámica.’
Tyler Bridges left out the last phrase: "The Venezuelan people and government affirm that the Iranian people will know how to best resolve their internal affairs and will continue on the path of their Islamic revolution."
To me, this statement expresses if anything, a siding with the wishes of the Iranian people. Bridges conveniently leaves this out and stresses the personal relationship between Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, by the way, was one of the leaders of the Islamic Revolution.
Although this might seem like nitpicking a statement to you, I don't think you can deny there’s some bias in Bridges commentary. Another example: When Bolivia cut off diplomatic ties to Israel after Israel decided to level Gaza he wrote that Bolivia "broke relations with Israel to protest the Gaza invasion -- even though Israel doesn't have an ambassador in Bolivia -- in apparent solidarity with Iran, an implacable foe of Israel." There you go: it was not solidarity with the Palestinians or concern for their plight, but plain solidarity with Iran that made Bolivia take that step. And you think this man is objective?
I took a cursory look to the FAIR article and I don’t see what Chavez has to do with it. It was written in 1996, when he hadn’t even become a politician.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 9:46:30 AM
I guess you just refuse to understand where this is coming from. I am quoting exactly what Chavez said with definite proof that the Western media and some Jewish organizations in the United States have clearly engaged in quote mining and outright fabrication yet you persist in your right to misinterpret. Of course you're free to parade your ignorance about Venezuela and Latin America and insist that you see the 'clear intention" to smear the Jewish people by the President of a country whose history and cultural intricacies you evidently don't understand, Fair enough, but from where I stand it's clearly obtuseness from your part and don't expect me to let that go unanswered.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend is not the wisest approach to friendship or international relations. "
Try telling that to the government of the U.S., which has been consistently(and still is) practicing that approach all around the World and particularly in Latin America. They have been conditioning their ‘aid’ to countries depending on their friendliness to Venezuela. If they can do it and get away with it, I don't see any reason (in principle, of course) why the Venezuelan government wouldn't have the right to do it. China has lately become very close to the Iranian leadership too, but you don't see the Chinese government being accused of 'promoting antisemitism'. Unless you think that some governments should be "more equal than others" I don't see in which moral grounds that behavior can be justified for one set of countries but not for another .
Now that you mention the 'right of a COUNTRY to exist', I don't think that concept is used by anybody but Israel itself and its numerous defenders. Is it a moral right? Does, say, Italy have the right to exist? For how long? What about Abkhazia? And Empires? Do they have the right to exist too? Would that include or exclude the right to be partitioned?
No country in the World has earned the 'right to exist', as right is a moral term. The existence of a country is a matter of fact, so the language of 'rights' is being misapplied in this instance . It is certainly not the way World history has unfolded until now. Countries are created and survive for a few hundred years until they disappear as a political entity, join other nations, etc. Sometimes they're created in a hotel room by greedy businessmen (the case of Panama, for instance). It seems like you are trying to claim special status for only one nation. I agree that any ethnic group has the right to exist and have a home, but applying this kind of concept to entities like countries raises very difficult moral and practical questions. I certainly wouldn't agree to a nation's 'right' to exist if it implies the right to dispossess other groups. Witness the U.S: Does it have a 'right' to exist? Yet it exists, no matter what anyone thinks, based mostly on its overwhelming military power and common cultural interests. The same excuse could have been easily given in the 19th century by the new American nation to wipe out the Native Americans that bravely fought it. Of course the 'injuns' didn't recognize the U.S. right to exist... in Native American land. The existence of the U.S. implied for them their own dispossesion and virtual inexistence.
Of course this kind of concept is bandied about without giving much thought to its meaning by the Western media (and equally thoughtlessly repeated by people, I might add), as in their often repeated assertion that "the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's right to exist' of course without completing the sentence with the phrase 'in Palestinian land'. Therein lies the problem.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 9:54:58 AM
As Lambness correctly said, the leader of a country speaking to its constituency doesn't have to taylor his statements so uninformed members of the developed World don't jump to the wrong conclusions. It's your obligation, Louise, to know what you are talking about before you make a comment.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 10:03:15 AM
Pepito, I'm with you. Clearly Chavez has issues but it's clear that for many of his most vocal critics his biggest crime is the way he spends Venezuela's oil revenue. The U.S. has certainly "befriended" Latin American leaders whose anti-Semitism was apparent in actions, not out-of-context remarks.
From the FAIR article Pepito originally cited:
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Jul 2, 2009 11:09:02 AM
Pepito, Louise disagrees with you over certain issues -- not the same as being misinformed.
As for philosemitism, it's not thinking Jews are superior, it's viewing Jews qua Jews preferentially, the same way an anti-semite dislikes Jews qua Jews. Neither group is truly for you. I was thrown by your assertion a few months back: "I don't like Israel." I can't source it because the search function here is imperfect. Maybe you meant, "I don't like the way Israel was created," or "I don't like the way the Jews who run Israel treat the non-Jews," or "If you ask me, Israel as a country needs not to exist, although I don't personally dislike the Jews in it, or those beyond its borders." It was a roomy remark. Your English is precise, expressive and impressive -- you have not had trouble saying what you mean, I think. Since 1973, when I was old enough to read the news, I have been sympathetic to the Palestinian cause without thinking Israel should cease to exist, so I try to listen carefully, since I am, myself, often in territory that seems incomprehensible to committed partisans, either of "Greater Israel" or of its entire dismantling.
I think many readers are aware Mousavi is a moderate compared only to Ahmadinejad. Also, he shows some signs of reading history. These are good things.
Somehow, somewhere, international revolutionary solidarity began to include affinities for the dismantling of Israel, if not its destruction. Very funny considering who has been CP all these decades and who has not. It's become like a special handshake. I view the remarks of Chavez quoted in this thread as that kind of special handshake with Ahmadinejad. Unlike a salute, which everyone can see, a special handshake has deniability. If you want Chavez not to be signaling that particular meaning, then you can say the term "Christ Killer" has a very different meaning in Venezuela, and among those conversant with Liberation Theology, than it does at the Passion Play at Oberammergau. Pork is regarded differently in Wales than it is in Riyadh, but you wouldn't find the mayor of Cardiff referring to toddlers in a new Muslim-run daycare center there as "cuter than piglets in a pen." If he did, you might say he misspoke himself.
In short, in your defense of Chavez, and of Ahmadinejad, you are screening for populism and international revolutionary brotherhood. I would simply advise you to take in more meanings rather than deny them because deniability has been coded in.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 11:32:27 AM
"Lobe pointed out the difference between Chavez's Venezuela and Argentina under military dictatorship: "Unlike Venezuela today, Argentina was then seen by the incoming Ronald Reagan administration (1981-1989) and its neo-conservative backers as a vital Cold-War ally." Surely anti-Semitism is a problem that deserves to be treated seriously, and not used as a pretense to bash official enemies."
Vicki, if anti-Semitism deserves to be treated seriously, one must differentiate the forms of it denoted by winks, gentlemen's agreements and special handshakes from those endured by Jacobo Timmerman and so many others 30 years ago in Argentina. Pouncing on Chavez as a crypto-anti-Semite in his communications across borders to other revolutionary leaders principally because he's no friend of our own petrocracy would indeed be wrong. Is wrong, when such as William Kristol does it. But if you're not trying to muddy the waters, you can call a thing by its rightful name and no injustice is done.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 11:59:08 AM
"I was thrown by your assertion a few months back: "I don't like Israel." I can't source it because the search function here is imperfect. Maybe you meant, "I don't like the way Israel was created," or "I don't like the way the Jews who run Israel treat the non-Jews," or "If you ask me, Israel as a country needs not to exist, although I don't personally dislike the Jews in it, or those beyond its borders." "
You're right, maybe I should have been more specific, although I don't remember that particular remark. And of course, I don't see Jews preferentially, or non-preferentially, for that matter. I don't have anything against Jews qua Jews.What I dislike about Israel is precisely what you are listing. Should that be construed as Anti-semitic? I don't think so. You're not likely to find me at a Neo-nazi rally or entertaining conspiratorial fantasies of Jews plotting to take over the World. What I can add about living in the U.S. while criticizing Israel is that you're likely to be met with a cacophony of accusations of 'anti-semitism' everytime you bring up the Palestinian issue. It's tiresome.
'Pork is regarded differently in Wales than it is in Riyadh, but you wouldn't find the mayor of Cardiff referring to toddlers in a new Muslim-run daycare center there as "cuter than piglets in a pen." If he did, you might say he misspoke himself. '
Not in a Muslim-run daycare center, but I wouldn't be surprised by the remark being uttered in a non-Muslim setting. I think you are using an imperfect analogy: Chavez wasn't making a speech in front of members of the Hebraica Club in Caracas.
"In short, in your defense of Chavez, and of Ahmadinejad, you are screening for populism and international revolutionary brotherhood. I would simply advise you to take in more meanings rather than deny them because deniability has been coded in. "
I guess we'll have to disagree here. All I can do again is repeat that, by looking at the context of the remark and the particular cultural setting it's not reasonable to conclude that he was referring to Jews.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 12:02:29 PM
" I wouldn't be surprised by the remark being uttered in a non-Muslim setting"
Should read:
"I wouldn't be surprised by the remark being uttered referring to children a non-Muslim day care center", although comparing children to piglets doesn't probably have the same connotation for me as for the mayor of Cardiff: I would find it odd, yet I am willing to admit that no offense to children in general might have been implied by comparing them to piglets and I am certainly not about to accuse the Mayor of Cardiff of 'infatophobia', 'anti-toddlerism' or whatever you might call that disorder(notice how those cultural and linguistic differences arise?)
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 12:13:48 PM
Ah, so, Elatia. I think I've figured it out...you do not agree that Chavez was speaking to his own Venezuelan constituency, he was secretly speaking to Ahmadinejad?
Posted by: Lambness | Jul 2, 2009 12:55:57 PM
Elatia, do you really think Chavez was claiming that a Zionist conspiracy was behind the exile of Bolivar and the massacre of striking banana workers in Santa Marta, Colombia? These references indicate to me that Chavez was making these remarks in the context of Latin American history, to a Latin American audience, and not in any way as a "secret handshake" to fellow fans of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
It is not special pleading or in any way "lame" to state, as the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting article does, that: "it's not fair to assert that anyone who refers to the crucifixion of Jesus is attacking the Jewish people.” In the context of liberation theology, the torture and death of Christ is often compared to the suffering of the victims of authoritarian repression by leaders backed by the US empire. That the anti-semitism of these regimes seems not to have disturbed many of Chavez' most vocal critics seems a bit curious.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Jul 2, 2009 12:59:49 PM
Louise, fascinating New Yorker article. And yet, it seems to me that that is exactly what the author does--investigates and reports on various perspectives and contexts of what the Pope said (including considerations of his theological audience). The result, I think, was a complex analysis of multiple relationships and motives. What it didn't do was sweepingly conclude that the Pope is a raving anti-Islamist. Even the Islamists quoted in the article didn't seem to profess this view, but opted rather to acknowledge that there is some modicum of truth, some modicum of fiction, and plenty of work to be done on both sides. I'm sorry, I don't quite undersdand how this article demonstrates anything contrary to my assertion. What was your take on it?
Posted by: Lambness | Jul 2, 2009 1:08:21 PM
"I view the remarks of Chavez quoted in this thread as that kind of special handshake with Ahmadinejad. Unlike a salute, which everyone can see, a special handshake has deniability. If you want Chavez not to be signaling that particular meaning, then you can say the term "Christ Killer" has a very different meaning in Venezuela, and among those conversant with Liberation Theology, than it does at the Passion Play at Oberammergau."
I seem to have missed that part. Yes, Elatia. It's all part of a secret-handshake and wink-wink that evil baddie Chavez has devised with fellow evil baddie Ahmadinejad to adress his biggest obsession: the Jews and their control of our Planet and the soon-to-come overtaking of Mars and its two satellites, Deimos and Phobos. Nothing else matters to him. The World is overflowing with antisemitism and the existence of 15,000 Venezuelan Jews are to Chavez, an issue more pressing that the 10,000 Venezuelans that die every year, victims of common crime and the roughly 7 million Venezuelans that live with less than $2 a day. Surely he has planned some sort of Final Solution to that overwhelming problem.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 1:18:40 PM
Although we disagree in many ways, Elatia, I had you for a reasonable commentator. But that 'handshake-cum-wink' remark ranks among one of the looniest I've heard in a long time, really. Whatever it is you are smoking, I want no part of it.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 1:23:41 PM
It's not a secret, Lambness, that he was speaking some other way than parochially. He has the world's ear, and he has a primary audience. At times it may be very convenient to say one is speaking only to one's primary audience, but unless one was secretly taped, one is speaking to everyone who listens. Speaking for the record, as it were. Creating, with the same words, different understandings among different constituencies. When George Bush used the language of Scripture without exactly quoting Scripture, he was speaking to the base in a way that others who know Scripture without being religious (or Republican) could decode very easily. So Bush was indeed talking to me and showing me something important about his world view -- I can't beg off getting it because I'm neither a fundamentalist nor a Rightist, and don't relate to Scripture like he does.
Thank you, Vicki -- I get it, not to worry. Chavez has the world's ear in the way the Maryknoll sisters in El Salvador did not -- until they were murdered, anyway. Good reason for him to take special care what he says -- as he does do, I believe, just not in the way I might prefer.
Paul Farmer and many at Partners in Health are committed to the component of liberation theology that requires preferential treatment of the poor, and they seem to be able to focus on the sufferings and death of Christ without making references to "Christ Killers." I don't see those references as liberation theology boilerplate, but as inflammatory code, and I have noticed that many proponents of liberation theology don't use them for public consumption, even if privately a Christ Killer is seen by them as not a Jew but a representative of the forces which killed not only Christ but multitudes who have believed in Him and found strength and comfort in His suffering. They are merely avoiding historic libels, as it is prudent to do. Why is it too much to ask that Chavez be anti-American without being careless or ultra-parochial in his speech? That I believe he was careful, and had a coded agenda, is not paranoid. I don't require others to believe it, but that even intelligent others disbelieve it does not oblige me to.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 1:50:42 PM
"I view the remarks of Chavez quoted in this thread as that kind of special handshake with Ahmadinejad."
It seems to me that in that remark you were specifically singling Ahmadinejad out as the intended audience, and not 'everyone who listens'. I think that's a little bit too conspiratorial.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 2:08:19 PM
Gee, Pepito, I'm on the natch. I see something you don't see. You think what I see isn't there. Can you see how this makes neither of us crazy or chemically altered? Or is that another thing I see and you don't see?
Please disagree with me without invidious suggestions like these. When I think you're incorrect, or have bought the party line, do I tell you you're spaced or stoned? No, I am content for you to be constricted in your thinking because of the received ideas that limit your intellectual life -- like everyone else is, including me. That's different from crazy thinking. And, as for your "wanting no part of" what I'm filling my lungs with (the air from an open window in Cambridge, MA) -- well, it wouldn't hurt you.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 2:09:50 PM
Pepito, in diplomatic speak, I do believe Chavez was "balancing with" Ahmadinejad in the remarks under discussion.
Not because they're both baddies and I suspect them of conspiring in a secret bunker in Gibraltar, but because they are verifiably on the same page, so can be said to be listening to each other. Two painters who know one another by their work, who influence one another's work, but have not moved in together at Arles, can still be said to be talking to one another through their work. Maybe that's more anodyne than the special handshake analogy.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 2:28:15 PM
Sorry for the sarcastic remark, Elatia. In this case, nonetheless, where you see something I don't, there's not really a middle position. He either intended his remark as a wink to Ahmadinejad and other assorted fellow anti-semites or not. You choose to believe one explanation, I the other. But one of us here is making a mistake.
I do agree with you that the air in Cambridge is much healthier that in NYC. I'll see what sort of thoughts enter my mind when I go there. Maybe I'll start seing antisemitism everywhere! (Sorry again, I couldn't resist).
Now the comparison of Ahmadinejad and Chavez with Van Gogh and Gauguin, that's hilarious... Is Flora Tristan par of the story too? How about Theo?
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 2:48:07 PM
"When I think you're incorrect, or have bought the party line"
I just think it's funny. I belong to no party and think of myself as a sort of left-wing anarchist...
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 2:59:29 PM
I've read through this thread three times and I still don't see a satisfying defense of Chavez' line that "the descendants of the same people who crucified Christ ... have taken control of the riches of the world."
I get that liberation theology uses this kind of imagery to discuss elites, generally, and the US specifically. What I don't get is what kind of bubble you would have to live in for there to be no other overtones to such a statement. We've all agreed that antisemitism is a problem in Venezuela, which makes it hard to argue that Venezuelan ears (in addition to those of the "developed West") are not also attuned to the language and imagery this ideology uses, with a history just as storied as the Bolivarian revolution.
Furthermore the terms in each analogy are not so easy to separate. The US, for example, is the great Satan of imperialist oppression in the Bolivarian interpretation, but it also just happens to be the home of more Jews than any other country in the world, as anti-semites never tire of pointing out, here and abroad. There are many, many intersections between the mythography of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism (to which I am sympathetic) and conspiratorial antisemitism. All too often a good critique of the economic order, like Jeremiah Wright's, crosses abruptly over into talk about "the Jews."
I therefore find it hard to merit that, whatever precise and idiosyncratic meaning "Christ killer" carries in Latin America, it is a mere coincidence that Chavez' statement about the people who crucified Christ "taking control of the wealth of the world" uses exactly the same language as people who allege a global Jewish conspiracy to amass wealth and oppress gentiles.
Pepito, if you could document some actual Latin American Jews saying "that's OK, he didn't mean us," I might be more inclined to take the "riches of the world" remark in the innocent way you proscribe.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jul 2, 2009 3:03:57 PM
I'm really tired of this. I really don't care if you're satisfied or not, Chris. You are going to see what you want to see. Let me just point out that there's no Great Satan in the 'bolivarian interpretation' and they certainly don't think of the US as an enemy because the Jews happen to be here. There's quotes by Venezuelan Jews saying 'he didn't mean us'. Some of them might even be in English. Go find them if you want to convince yourself. But, I doubt Venezuelans give two shits what you and your fellow paranoiacs think.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 3:36:12 PM
OK, there you go. This is it, I swear:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31767
From the article:
As to the anti-Semitic interpretation of Chavez' Christmas Eve remarks by O'Grady and Mannes, who in fact were echoing a formal protest to Caracas last week by the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre, it was explicitly rejected by Fred Pressner, president of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela (CAIV), as well as two major U.S. Jewish groups.
"You have interfered in the political status, in the security, and in the well-being of our community," according to a draft letter from the CIAV to the Wiesenthal Centre obtained by The Forward, the largest-circulation Jewish newspaper in the United States. "You have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don't know or understand."
"We believe the president was not talking about Jews and that the Jewish world must learn to work together," according to the draft letter, which noted that the latest protest was the third time that the Wiesenthal Center had publicly criticised Chavez without first consulting the local community.
Now, I'm out. I need some fresh air.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 2, 2009 3:41:45 PM
Thank you, Pepito; that actually goes a long way. Interesting that the American Jewish Congress and American Jewish Committee both made statements that they don't consider the Christmas Eve remarks antisemitic.
I don't think Elatia and others were wrong, however, to hold to a high standard of skepticism on this. There is a long history of politicians making veiled remarks under the cover of plausible deniability, and if, in the end, our worries about Chavez are unfounded does not mean that observing the resemblence of his statement to traditional antisemitic slurs is paranoid or knee-jerky.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jul 2, 2009 4:09:38 PM
I'm with Elatia on this one. Very insightful.
Although I am not shocked to hear that a prominent Venezuelan Jew finds nothing to it.
Posted by: Carlos | Jul 2, 2009 4:45:35 PM
I can think of many reasons why a prominent Venezuelan Jew, and his 14,999 co-religionists there, would make the remarks cited. Not all of these reasons have anything to do with telling the simple unvarnished truth. Pressner and others are the Jews who live in Venezuela, and their look-out is creating good relations among tens of millions of gentiles and themselves. Maybe one time-tested way to effect this is to be seen as miffed that Nosy Parker, safe Jews in LA -- at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, yet -- are drawing inferences about the leader of Venezuela that might cast Jewish life in Caracas as suboptimal? I hope I'm not being paranoid. I hope I'm only bringing to everyone's attention a standard issue diplomatic maneuver that helps small minorities of all kinds, everywhere, navigate treacherous waters. Assuming that what Fred Pressner says for the record is just plain factual rather than strategic is ludicrous.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 5:14:24 PM
I forgot the < /irony > tag or the extra shocked
Posted by: Carlos | Jul 2, 2009 5:23:24 PM
Or maybe I should read my own comment before re-commenting... Regardless, what you said.
Posted by: Carlos | Jul 2, 2009 5:26:28 PM
Ludicrous, too, that the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee are supposed to make observations that are intended to be taken at face value, rather than understood as strategic. the Simon Wiesenthal Center is a watchdog organization, to say the least, and their communications are strategic, too. Different strategy.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 2, 2009 5:39:13 PM
Pepito,
I suppose I should feel grateful to you for informing me of my "obligation" and my obtuseness. After all, at least you didn't tell me I have my head up my ass, your complimentary remark to aguy.
You are so rude and insulting to nearly everyone here that it's a challenge to get through to you in a civil tone of voice.
READ what I wrote about Western CORPORATE media bias in favor of its allies instead of giving me a lecture on what I think or don't think about bias. I would amend my earlier remark by adding advertisers' bias to allies' bias.
I posted the Fair article because it correlates with your remark about bias in favor of Israel. But I guess in this instance I was just dead wrong. Of course you don't think Zionist interests control the media. The media just happen to be biased in favor of Israel.
As far as guilt by association, it's a little MORE than association you're talking about. It's support, a strong alliance, trade, etc., etc., etc. with a raving lunatic!
I didn't realize that I was also obligated to criticize US alliances if I were criticizing Chavez for his close ties with Ahmadinejad. But thank you for also pointing out that deficiency in my response.
You probably don't celebrate the Fourth of July, but just in case, hope you enjoy a nice parade or barbecue or colorful fireworks. Ours may be soggy here in Boston.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 2, 2009 6:34:26 PM
Lambness,
I will respond to your comment on the New Yorker article after the long weekend. Glad you found it worthwhile.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 2, 2009 6:42:35 PM
So, now that all that is settled, let's examine Chavez's statement one last time:
"The world has an offer for everybody but it turned out that a few minorities--the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia--they took possession of the riches of the world,…".
PEPITO, of whom does Chavez speak that he described as one of a "few minorities--the descendants of those who Crucified Christ,...--they took possession of the riches of the world"?
I still cannot determine your answer to that question.
Thanks.
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jul 2, 2009 11:36:38 PM
Norman -
From the FAIR article Pepito cited in his very first comment:
-"Editing Chavez to Manufacture a Slur", http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2805
The 3 theories about this quote seem to be:
1. That it was a direct, unveiled, anti-Semitic attack. Which means, restoring the ellipses, that Chavez claims that a Jewish conspiracy expelled Bolivar from South America and was behind the United Fruit Company's massacre of striking workers in Colombia.
2. The speech plays to Chavez' audience of peasants who hear the Roman Empire/US Empire reference, while simultaneously dog-whistling to the anti-Semitic Iranian leader he's been pallin' around with.
3. Chavez clumsily handed the U.S. media a stick to beat him with.
#1 doesn't seem that well supported to me, #2 is possible, #3 seems most probable to me given Chavez' tendency to logorrhea.
It all seems to hinge on how comfortable one is with those 3 little dots... If the words they represent are meaningless, the gap seems insignificant.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Jul 3, 2009 12:20:29 AM
venezuelanalysis
venezuelanalysis
If anything has been lost in translation, elided or taken out of context, I'm sure Pepito will clear up any resultant confusion and possible bias against Chavez that anyone might find upon "interpreting" the content of these articles.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 3, 2009 1:17:11 AM
Vicki, you are correct -- making an invidious comparison based on even a tiny fabrication is a wrong thing to do. Also, it is not helpful to the cause of anyone hoping to see the coded forms of hate speech disappear along with the unadulterated forms.
But, that I am uncomfortable with any fabrication about a speech I regard as telling rather than clumsy does not remove those anti-Semitic resonances I perceive in the full quotation. And while Roman soldiers may have been the actual killers of Christ, it is not Italians in uniform who have historically been libeled and persecuted for that crime, as FAIR surely knows. It's very sad, for many reasons, that anyone at the Simon Wiesenthal Center cooked that ellipsis up, but especially sad when the actual words of Chavez were bad enough.
Well, Israel's stock is down among the far left, is it not? And the Israelis have lost the moral high ground. Is this sparking some anti-Semitism of the kind that can readily be distinguished from disgust with the present government of Israel? These are issues to be extremely careful about, and as precise as one can. You feel like cutting Chavez some slack here. I don't. If the bitch that bore Hitler is indeed in heat again, I don't want not to have taken a reading. Mistakes like that have been made.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 3, 2009 1:23:19 AM
Vicki Baker:
Thank you. It was clear to me that Chavez was referring to three separate groups in his statement:
“...[A] few minorities--...”
1. “...[T]he descendants of those who crucified Christ...”.
2. “...[T]he descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here...”.
3. “...[T]hose who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia...”.
I did not come to the conclusion that “...the descendants of those who crucified Christ...” were the same people who “...expelled Bolivar from South America...”. Nor did I conclude that the same group “...was behind the United Fruit Company's massacre of striking workers in Colombia.” Your first theory of how the quote is being interpreted does not make the same distinctions among “a few minorities” as made by Chavez, clearly.
From three non-overlapping groups, separated by grammatical construction and distinct contexts, you create a single entity. In my opinion, you err in blurring the lines of demarcation.
This brings me back to my original question for PEPITO. To whom was Chavez referring as “...the descendants of those who crucified Christ...”, as distinct from the other two groups of minorities?
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jul 3, 2009 1:55:01 AM
I basically said what I have to say in this matter in my first 2 comments. The weakness of Pepito's position is evidenced by the number of times he's had to repeat himself and his need to descend to personal insults. Chavez takes a stand against US interference in Latin America and Pepito applauds him for that (and yes, your decision to go and live in the US DOES seriously affect your credibility) Leftist leaders in Latin America used to turn to the Soviet Block for inspiration and support, now they (he?) turn(s) to the Islamic Republic. If his electorate supports that, thats their business, but Chavez also gives active support to Hezbollah, which carried out 2 major attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five). Thats enough for me to fully justify the accusation of anti-semitism in the title - case proven.
The fact that Fred Pressner, president of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela (CAIV) objects to these accusations against Chavez is irrelevant. Leaders of indigineous Jewish communities ALWAYS say that kind of thing, because the government is breathing down their necks and they are scared of "stirring up the goyim", afraid of businesses being shut down, etc.
Posted by: aguy109 | Jul 3, 2009 7:42:41 AM
"and yes, your decision to go and live in the US DOES seriously affect your credibility"
My reading comprehension may have failed me. Or my memory.
Pepito. Did you mean this j'accuse to refer to yourself or the person you were replying to?
I was operating under the assumption that you were a Chavez supporting Venezuelan. Not so?
On further reflection, also, I don't think the dog whistle *must* be tuned only to Iranian frequencies. Anyone applauding synagogue desecration would surely have heard it, particularly with this latest assult.
The bitch that bore Hitler. *!*
Posted by: Carlos | Jul 3, 2009 10:49:31 AM
As a leftist and an anti-Israeli Jew, I can't help but weigh in against Chavez in this situation. For all that Chavez seems to have the interests of the Venezuelan poor at heart, his methods through the years have been awful. Just looking to the article, his response to the desecration of the Tiferet Israel Synagogue was a nearly stereotypical antisemetic charge:
“Like any police investigator, you have to ask yourself: who benefits from these violent acts? Not the government, not the people, not the Revolution. . . . It is they themselves who did it! This is what I say to the nation.”
Blame the Jews! They brought it on themselves!
There are many cited instances in the piece, beyond the damning "Christ-Killer" remark. And yes, Pepito, antisemitism has for generations been a wink-and-nudge, handshake-under-the-table affair, and the Jews of Venezuela have real reason to fear these sorts of gestures.
As I said, I believe the state of Israel was a terrible mistake, and that Zionism has brought shame to my people and suffering to innocent Palestinians. But Chavez and his mouthpieces wrap Zionism up into a neat little conspiratorial package and use it as a club to beat up dissenters.
The Emilio Silva article mentioned in the Boston Review is another classic example of antisemitism being cloaked in righteousness:
"Silva characterizes the enemy as “those Zionist Hebrews [who] care more for their pocket-books than for anything else, including Jehova” and calls on his readers to “publicly demand that any Jew in any street, mall, square, etc., take a position [with respect to Israel] by yelling slogans in favor of Palestine and against the miscarried and disfigured state (estado-aborto) of Israel.”
I'm delighted to shout anti-Israeli slogans all day long without prompting, but to suggest that I must, as a loyalty test, is morally repugnant. Chavez, for all that he might have the best intentions at heart, doesn't know how not to be a demagogue and a thug. As a leftist, I oppose thuggery-- the thuggery of the US against South America, the thuggery of Israel against the Palestinians, the thuggery of Chavez against his opponents, including the Jews.
Thug thug thug thug thug thug thug.
Posted by: Stangy | Jul 3, 2009 11:13:24 AM
TIME FOR A TRIVIA QUIZ
This may seem a bit off topic, but it's not.
What American President cut off all aid to Nicaragua under the government of Daniel Ortega?
Follow-up question: Why?
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jul 3, 2009 2:12:05 PM
Obama, but I'm not sure it's *all* aid. Because of allegations of election fraud. Don't forget the part about 2 days from Brownsville.
Chavez still hasn't cut off aid to low-income Americans though.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Jul 3, 2009 3:39:31 PM
One quick and final comment, because I've been away from the office and for some strange reason (cookies, maybe) my comments from home won't appear at 3qd:
To Louise Gordon:
You're probably right to call me rude, but I'm not here to be your friend and our definitions of civil discourse are, apparently, very different. From where I stand it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. I'm just pointing it out. If you don't like it, that's fine. You posted a couple of links that seem to have horrified you but in which I all I found was criticism of US imperialism and Israel's criminal policies. I guess that's enough for an indictment of Chavez as a 'baddie' from your part. A cursory look at the rest of your posts (including that jibe an me for 'not celebrating the 4th of July') just brings you down a couple of notches intellectually, in my opinion, as I find 'patriotism'- or to be more accurate, nationalism-, nauseating).I just want to point out that I don't have to 'celebrate' anything. I have never liked fireworks (and not only the US independence ones) or parades. But you'll no doubt be pleased to know that I went to a nice barbecue like almost everybody else I know.
About Chavez, in general:
Most posters here accusing him of Anti-semitism ignore that in Chavez's iconography Jesus repeatedly appears as the 'first socialist' (a claim that he repeats often). It's logical form his point of view to denounce those who killed him as a way to further his indictment of capitalism and the rich elites (not the Jews), which is what he was doing. He might not be historically accurate, but for most people who don't read the misleading US press is easy to to see what he's trying to say.
Somebody also referred to Mario (not Emilio) Silva's disgraceful and clearly anti-semitic comment in his La Hojilla program. Mario Silva is not Chavez. You're conflating that the Venezuelan equivalent of Bill O'Reilly with the President of the country. Of course there is and there has always been some instances of anti-semitism (and other kinds of racism, in general) in Venezuela and arguably in every country in the World, but this does not mean that Mario Silva is not a representative of his government or Chavismo in general.
The comments I read from the last few days just confirm my suspicion that most of you are just going to see what you want to see. I have read virtually every kind of comment, ranging from those that demonstrate a ridiculous lack of reading comprehension by some of the people here to personal cheap shots (I'm not going to go over my reasons to currently reside in the US, aguy, but I can assure you it's beyond my control now- not that I haven't repeatedly thought of leaving, and as I said before, it doesn't invalidate my conclusions) to the the stupefying and mind-boggling suggestion that the mere fact that the President of the Venezuelan Jewish Confederation denied that Chavez was referring to the Jews in his speech actually proved he was referring to them, because the Venezuelan Jews might have been afraid of reprisals (by that logic, the fact that many people in Venezuela complain about the press misrepresentation of their country as 'anti-democratic' really proves they are being forced to complain, because, well...because it's antidemocratic and we already know it. Our press tells us so... The fact that somebody is refuting our point just proves our point). Sigh. I'm not going to convince any of you. But this really demostrates, for me, the unbelievable lenghts that people, liberals and conservatives alike, go to in order to preserve their cherished beliefs. That, and a verification that US liberals are not the left (and are only to the left of US wingnuts). I would thank God for this if I believed in Her.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 8, 2009 10:17:13 AM
"this does not mean that Mario Silva is not a representative of his government or Chavismo in general. "
should read
"this does not mean that Mario Silva is a representative of his government or Chavismo in general. "
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 8, 2009 10:21:03 AM
That strikes me as the genius of the US Empire. Everybody has to mouth platitudes about the greatness of the US for him/her to be taken seriously.
I also find it very interesting about the United States that the mainstream discourse is so wonderfully controlled by the very few without having to punish dissenters (except for a few of them.)
There's a good news in all this though. Al Jazeera English arrived here this month. They are not my ideal channel, but they are far better than CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or even BBC.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Jul 8, 2009 11:08:59 AM
Pepito,
I see that it makes more sense for you to focus on "US imperialism" and "Israel's criminal policies" than any perceived inadequacies of Chavez, though you do take the trouble to distance him from Silva, who is published in aporrea.org, an online source that supports Chavez. To their credit, they removed one of Silva's offending articles and posted an apology in its place, saying that the first article was not aligned with "Bolivarian" principles or some such. Now, the reader is directed to a new Silva article that apparently meets Bolivarian standards.
But why didn't you address Stangy's remarks on Chavez and thug thug thug thug thug thuggery? After all, he might agree with you on Israel's policies. He seems to think Israel is "bad for the Jews," as the saying goes. Convinced that you won't convince any of us of anything, is that the reason? Or are you sticking to refuting charges of anti-Semitism versus thuggery?
You write: "Most posters here accusing him of Anti-semitism ignore that in Chavez's iconography Jesus repeatedly appears as the 'first socialist' (a claim that he repeats often). It's logical form his point of view to denounce those who killed him as a way to further his indictment of capitalism and the rich elites (not the Jews), which is what he was doing. He might not be historically accurate, but for most people who don't read the misleading US press is easy to to see what he's trying to say."
Well, my interpretation of "Scripture" may not be intellectually rigorous enough for you, but the following, from the Book of Acts, may be at least one reference from which such "Jesus first socialist" notions arise:
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)
As far as I know, neither the Apostles nor Jesus tried to establish a theocracy under which such sharing would be administered. For a head of state to invoke an image of Jesus in defense of government policy gives the impression that Chavez is promoting theocracy. The right kind, of course.
As far as celebrating the Fourth of July, I'm not much of a patriot, either. But look, you "Don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's" (rye bread). And even Richard Dawkins sings Christmas carols.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 8, 2009 2:58:42 PM
Louise:
Stangy's remarks on Chavez were based on the confusion between Mario Silva's anti-semitic statement and Chavez's alleged anti-semitism. I thought I addressed his comment.
Look, this is actually pretty simple: the article from the Boston Review clearly states that anti-semitism is official policy in Venezuela. I think that if any of you takes the time to visit the country, you would know after a day or so that it's plain bullshit.
And really, does it give you the impression that Chavez is promoting 'Theocracy'? Would that also mean that when Chavez speaks laudatory words about Fidel Castro he's promoting 'Atheism'? For the sake of argument, I really can't see how, even in the hypothetical event that Chavez started applying the ideas in the paragraph you cited while making references to Jesus, that would make a theocracy out of Venezuela. It seems to me that somehow you're trying to establish another (in this case totally spurious) link between Venezuela and Iran.
Posted by: Pepito | Jul 8, 2009 4:07:13 PM
Now we are talking about the Arab-Israeli Dispute? How fun ! How come for some every issue comes down to where you stand on the Israelis and arabs?
1. This weeks: Israel is denounced for the lack of medical facilities in Gaza while Hamas sends missiles at ambulance carrying medical patients from Gaza to Israeli hospital.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0810/breaking42.htm
2. We all know Gaza is Arab and jews have no business being there. So, how did Gaza become Arab? They killed all the Jews living there; the last of whom were murdered in the 1905 lynchings.
3. Arab East Jerusalem is Arab and the jews have no legitimate rights there. (i) So why were there 58 synogogues in that tiny area? The synogogues were desecrated sometime between 1948 and 1967 when the Israelis returned. (ii) One of the most notorious of the Arab massacres of Jews in the 1948 war occurred in East jerusalem. (The Arabs murdered large numbers of Jews and jewish villages in this war, but this was notable because all of the victims were Red Cross workers.)
It goes on and on. The claims of Israeli massacres and war crimes are largely nonsense; see the fictional Mohammed al dura, fictional Jenin Massacre, nonsensical accusations of 'disproportional response' which is not a part of International Law (I am an attorney with expertise in that area of law and it is just a slogan, not substantive law.)
getting back to the original debate: often anti-semitism (jew hatred) is used as a tool by facist regimes to bolster support by labbeling opposition as 'inauthentic'. That is the main point of the article and the debate seems to have drifted.
The mark of the anti-semite: everything is all about the Jews.
Posted by: andrew nitzberg | Aug 15, 2009 10:25:42 PM
FreedomOfSpeech?
All part of the honorable Bolivarian tradition?
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Aug 19, 2009 5:56:35 PM
Post a comment