In my view the Wiesenthal Center really had to reach to go after Chavez

[jpgray]

CARACAS, Venezuela, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Prominent Jewish rights group, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, accused Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday of using what it said were anti-Semitic remarks and demanded an apology.

In a televised Christmas Eve speech, Chavez, a left-winger and a former soldier, said that "minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ ... have grabbed all the wealth of the world for themselves."

Chavez, a Catholic, did not mention the Jewish people and in the same comments referred to the betrayal of Venezuelan liberation hero Simon Bolivar. But the group said his remarks represented central arguments of anti-Semitism -- accusing the Jews of killing Jesus Christ and associating them with wealth.

"Both elements have served as a perfect excuse to justify the most cruel persecution and killing during two millenniums," the Wiesenthal center said in a statement.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N04386817.htm

That's a bit of a reach, isn't it? Chavez never mentions Jews and refers to the betrayal of Bolivar in the same comments (my history may be a bit rusty, but I believe those folks were Catholic). The common socialist viewpoint of Christ's death doesn't vilify the Jews, cf. Woody Guthrie (whose kids were raised Jewish by their mother, before someone accuses -him- of anti-Semitism):

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land,
A hard working man and brave.
He said to the rich "Give your goods to the poor."
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave...

...This song was written in New York City,
Of rich man, preacher and slave,
But if Jesus was to preach like He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave.

Isn't a bit presumptuous to assume that only the Jews can fit the description of a minority that has seized world wealth for itself? As a Marxist speaker and Chomsky fan, when Chavez speaks to the minority that killed Jesus, betrayed Bolivar and "grabbed all the wealth of the world," I think the reference is to monied elites (likely rich Western imperialist nations) and not the Jewish people. One could hardly claim the Jews have "grabbed all the wealth of the world," while one can easily claim that the wealthiest nations of the world are doing just that and have been for ages. Doesn't that make more sense, or am I nuts?

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Sorry, but...

Isn't a bit presumptuous to assume that only the Jews can fit the description of a minority that has seized world wealth for itself?

Not at all, when you look at the fact that he said "descendants of those who crucified Christ" (exactly who do you think the Catholic church taught was responsible for that for nearly two millenia? Hint: It wasn't the Romans). Not to mention that the Church's prohibition on lending of money at interest by Christians led to banking becoming a profession associated with Jews in the minds of Europeans for centuries, and also led to the myth that Jews control the world's finances...I can certainly see basis for their interpretation of his comments (which seem at best ill-advised, if not intended as anti-Semitic).

[jpgray]

2. The socialist view of Christ's death has never been "the Jews did it"

Socialists by and large hold up Jesus as a sort of proto-Marx who was a champion of the meek and working class against the elite religious and secular authorities of his day. And how do you explain his segue to Bolivar's betrayers? Were they Jews as well? It just doesn't fit easily--you have to force that interpretation, in my view. And Chavez is plain-spoken enough to name Jews when he means Jews--this fits perfectly with a long history of tirades against minority Western imperialism, whereas it would be the solitary anti-Semitic comment I can remember hearing from him if it was intended as such.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. My understanding was that "the Romans," the imperial powers, constituted

the tribunal that put down the death sentence. If you want to blame "the Jews," well, that is your view, but don't attribute your interpretation of that story to Chavez.

(edit typo)

[jpgray]

5. SJ is correct though that this view was and is common

I just think in context attributing his words to the Jewish people doesn't make sense. I cited the Woody Guthrie song as another example of someone using Christ's death as an attack on the wealthy minority without engaging in anti-Semitism.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. It's NOT my interpretation.

I state very clearly that it was the interpretation of the Catholic Church. Two words: "Reading comprehension."

[ConsAreLiars]

15. Who does Chavez face as an enemy?

Certainly not "the Jews." Suggesting that he intended that meaning is both an irrational attack on him And a reiteration of that lie (perpetuated by the Catholic Church and anti-Catholic Aryan cults equally). When you repeat that lie, you reinforce it, and it needs to be challenged.

[jpgray]

19. In this thread, stating the lie explains the Wiesenthal Center's reasoning

There's nothing wrong with discussing the concept that some believe the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus--it's important to acknowledge in order to understand why this controversy exists to begin with.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Except that I didn't.

All I said was that based on the history involved, I can see how one might conclude that his remarks were intended as anti-Semitic, and that the choice of words was somewhat unfortunate given the historical context in which it can be placed. I'm not "perpetuating" anything; it's not my fault that you're apparently incapable of understanding English.

[ConsAreLiars]

24. OK, I misunderstood your intent..

You said "might" and I understood you to mean that his views "might" be anti-Jewish. Clearly, you only meant they "might" be. Sorry for the confusion. Clearly you meant something different than that. Adding insults to your replies really is not all that helpful, although I assume that was not your intent, idiot.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. Not an insult; a mere statement of fact.

EVERY TIME you've responded to a post of mine, you've misread it and insisted that I meant something I clearly didn't...so, tell me, what OTHER conclusion am I supposed to come to? Either you have terribly poor reading comprehension skills, or you have some need to make baseless and unfounded attacks on people based on positions they haven't actually expressed. Which is it?

[ConsAreLiars]

28. Another insult?

Well, color me surprised.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. ...

If you want to blame "the Jews," well, that is your view, but don't attribute your interpretation of that story to Chavez.

Who does Chavez face as an enemy? Certainly not "the Jews." Suggesting that he intended that meaning is...an irrational attack...

Tell me how your misinterpretation of my statements and attribution to me of motivations and meanings that I don't happen to have isn't insulting? You as much as called me an anti-Semite, and then said that mentioning the context of the Wiesenthal Centre's interpretation is an "irrational attack". Mote and beam.

[ConsAreLiars]

35. I referred, in that comment., to the insults directed at me.

Not the substance of your attack on Chavez.

And the fact that you use H.L. Mencken, an alleged anti-semite and racist, in your sig, had nothing to do with it. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken , if you are indeed that clueless.)

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. Evidently it did, since you mention it...

and I can admire the words without admiring the man. Ezra Pound was a fascist; he was still a brilliant poet. Louis-Ferdinand Celine was a Vichy collaborator, and Knut Hamsun a Nazi sympathiser, but their novels are still milestones of modern literature. And so on.

And I made no "attack" on Chavez. It would appear that you're the clueless one here.

[EST]

3. Tough call.

In my opinion, yes, Chavez made a thinly veiled, gratuitous reference to Jews.
Also, yes, the Wiesenthal folks need to develop a little thicker skin and reconsider the decision to play directly into the hands of the true great satan of the last half century-the neofascists and their supporters.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Not a reach at all.

"Esta lloviendo los gatos y los perros." It's raining cats and dogs. In English, this makes sense, in Spanish, not so much. Thus the difference between 'translating' and 'interpreting.' I have two "theories" for this situation. The first, is that he was speaking about Jews and imperialists. The second, is that both statements were about the ruling elite. However, because of his background as a Catholic, there is room for misunderstanding. That said, I have never heard him say anti-Jewish things before, so this may be a misinterpretation and not a mistranslation.

[thebigidea]

8. yeah, that's the thing that gets me: he's never gone on anti-semitic rants

and Chavez may be many things, but he's not a shy guy who keeps his opinions to himself. If he was a bigot, he would've been the biggest, loudest bigot in the hemisphere with a paper trail of sick comments going back to his teen years.

But there aren't ANY. it just doesn't make any sense, he doesn't need imaginary scapegoats for his country's problems when plenty of real problems exist - that he's gone on about in depth for years.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Thus, my skepticism.

However, given the current events, I cannot say I blame The Weisenthal Center for being defensive. After all, paranoid people have real enemies too. (and no, I am not saying the WC is paranoid)

[thebigidea]

12. I'd like to see a response from Chavez about it that leaves no wiggle room

I'm guessing we'll probably get it this week, he's not a particularly reserved feller.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. He is out-spoken, no doubt.

Since I have not heard of anti-Semitic comments in the past from him, I am willing to leave "wiggle room." I hope that he does clear it up, but in the grand scheme, it really isn't that big of a deal, but does warrant watching if no explanation or apology is forthcoming.

[Richard Steele]

9. No, hardly a 'reach' at all.

It's pretty damn clear who Chavez was referring to.

When we recognize that he is adressing his comments to a
Catholic audience, in a nation where Catholicism
is still winning Superbowls with a playbook printed in 1620...

The only "stretch" I see is someone sitting 1000 miles away
at a keyboard, trying to claim that he wasn't talking about the Jews.

[jpgray]

14. I just don't see it as clear at all

Nowhere are Jews mentioned, and the context of the attack includes decidedly non-Jewish people, namely Catholic Spaniards. That would be a bizarre non sequitur to go from an anti-Semitic attack to Simon Bolivar's betrayal. If, however, he was referring to Western imperialists, everything fits perfectly--and rather than wholly unique (to my knowledge) underhanded bigotry from Chavez, you'd have another in a very long series of attacks against wealthy imperialist Western countries. One of which, you might remember, tried and executed Jesus. When someone talks about those who killed Jesus, you can't immediately assume the person means "Jews"--I tried to reference that Woody Guthrie song for an example of how socialists interpret the event.

[Richard Steele]

31. "I just don't see it as clear at all"

Yes, I knew that.
You don't.
You really don't.
I do _NOT_ doubt your honesty. Anyone who says I do is a damned liar.

But:
your ability to self-examine your beliefs;
your willingness to turn the 'harsh light of truth' INWARD;
your youthful, idealistic preference for TRUTH above heros...
THOSE I doubt.

I think those things might be juuuust abit rusty and cobwebbed.

There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

[jpgray]

34. I come from a long line of self-examiners, thanks

I can see how the WC could interpret the remarks as anti-Semitic, and I can see enough fo a possibility there to ask for an explanation, but demanding an apology seems way out of line to me. And I note my attempt to explain why I don't think "Jews" fits the bill as well as "Western imperialists" (Rome in Judea, Spain in Venezuela, US/Europe in the world) remains unanswered. It certainly could refer to the Jewish people, but it would be out of character for Chavez and doesn't fit as well with the rest of what he was saying.

[rpannier]

11. Given the historical context of how those statements have been used

It's not unreasonable or presumptuous for the Weisenthal Center to become concerned. For centuries groups that have hated the Jews have used the "They killed Christ" myth to justify the persecution --It's only been since the end of WW II that the myth has become a small minority opinion. The Jews own everything idea still exists today. Go to any hate site and they'll tell you how the Jews are Satan's children, that they killed Christ and there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
At the very least Chavez owes an explanation to what he meant. IMHO

[thebigidea]

13. yeah, but have Venezuelans historically scapegoated Jews?

[rpannier]

16. If you look at the history It's Quite Possible

Not being an expert on the Venezuela I wouldn't know. Most Catholic countries of the 16th-19th Centuries did in some way scapegoat Jews. So the possibility of anti-Jewish propoganda permeating through Venezuela is a real possibility.
The fact still remains, that his statements have been used in the past, by other people, as excuses to hate Jews. Because of this fact, it is not unreasonable for the Weisenthal Center, or anyone else, to be concerned.

[thebigidea]

18. I'd prefer historical facts rather than "its quite possible," thanks.

"Because of this fact, it is not unreasonable for the Weisenthal Center, or anyone else, to be concerned."

Sure, I can see both sides of the issue here. I do think its a misunderstanding, as it makes no sense whatsoever for Chavez to start scapegoating Jews for the world's problems now. He's not a stupid man.

[rpannier]

23. And I would like to remind you

that I was focusing in on the statements and their historical context. I never claimed that Chavez was an anti-Semite or some sort of Nazi sympathizer. My posting was how reasonable people could rightly be concerned about those statements.

[jpgray]

17. Well, they didn't ask for an explanation, they asked for an apology

I guess that's what rankles with me. I agree that it could be interpreted as anti-Semitic, but I don't see that as the only explanation or even the most likely.

[rpannier]

22. I agree with you on that point

Asking for an apology is not the same as asking for an explanation. From my perspective, I would like to hear a clarification. But, then...Chavez doesn't answer to me.

[LibertyorDeath]

25. Ok i'm confused I thought Christ was Jewish

and the Romans & Jews conspired to have him killed because the status quo was threatened by his teachings & from what I know of his teachings he sounds like a die hard Socialist. (my kind of guy.)

So what's with all the we had nothing to do with his death shit from the WC.

Any theologians around.

[jpgray]

26. The WC interpreted Chavez's comment as a slam on Jews in particular

Whereas I see it as a slam on Western imperialism. (The minority being Rome in Judea, Spain in Venezuela, the US/Europe in the world today, etc., etc.)

[LibertyorDeath]

32. Well he's of the people & For the people so i'm sure

there will be all kinds of mis-interpretation of what he says.

[w13rd0]

30. I would think...

...that he meant the moneychangers, the imperial powers. Those who were most threatened by Jesus. That doesn't mean "Jews" anymoreso than were my saying, "I hate the GOP and all it stands for" mean that I want to kill everyone who has ever voted for a Republican.

[LibertyorDeath]

33. Good point

[allemand]

37. Liberation theology, not anti-Semitism.

It helps a lot to read the complete http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2020953&mesg_id=2021077">transcript.

I guess that Chavez often uses references to liberation theology in his speeches. There should be many examples. This is the first I found:

Ya Cristo se enfrentó también al imperialismo, y ese es otro de los grandes mártires de nuestra historia: el Cristo antiimperialista, el Cristo rebelde, el Cristo que nació entre los pobres y murió por los pobres, el Cristo que dice: "…más fácil será que un camello pase por el ojo de una aguja, a que un rico entre al Reino de los Cielos". El Cristo que vino a traer la buena nueva de la igualdad, de la libertad y el rey de la justicia y del amor entre nosotros.
http://www.mre.gov.ve/Noticias/Presidente-Chavez/A2005/Discurso-262.htm

(Babelfish translation with some corrections: )
Christ already stood up against imperialism, and he is another one of the great martyrs of our history: the anti-imperialist Christ, the rebellious Christ, the Christ who was born among the poor and died for the poor, the Christ who says: "... it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven". The Christ who came to bring the gospel of equality, of freedom and the king of justice and the love among us.

[HamdenRice]

38. Minoridad in Spanish

I speak Spanish, and they really misunderstand the word "minoridad". It literally means, "a minority" -- as in fewer people than the majority, as in the rich few. It does not mean "minorities" as in minority ethnic groups.

If he had said a majority, he would have said mayoridad. But that doesn't mean the mayor of the city did it.

[NaturalHigh]

39. If he wasn't trying to disparage Jews...

then he should say so and explain what he meant. Let's be honest; if a republican congressman had said what Chavez said, he would get pummeled here. We shouldn't go for double standards.

[400Years]

40. Gimme a break, how lame

So some highly sensitive idiots at the Wiesenthal center don't have a clue as to what Chavez is saying and somehow Chavez owes them an explanation. I suggest these people get their panties out of a knot and read up on Liberation Theology, Latin American History, and current events. These people at the SWC make a living off of screaming "anti-semitism!!!!" every chance they get.

[NaturalHigh]

41. Screaming "anti-Semitism"?

It is your response that is lame. The Wiesenthal Center does what it can to fight against racism and bigotry of all kinds, not just anti-Semitism. The people who work there are NOT the equivalent of the PC police who seem to show up wherever there is a camera. These are good people doing a valuable service.

As for Chavez said, it sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me, but I have no way of knowing if that's how he meant it.

[Just Me]

42. They know not what they do. Being GRIPPED by fear is the fashion,....

,...these days,...imposed by a barbaric, arrogant reign-of-power, consters.

When we can INVEST in common human interests,...everyone will relax. Until then, why wouldn't normal, healthy people seek to escape this insane OPTIONALLY-CREATED-STATE-OF-FEAR CRIME against humanity, for profit, organization called, "the United States of America", under BushCO/neocon dominance?