Wiesenthal Center slams Chavez "anti-Semitic" talk

[sabra]

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

Wiesenthal Center slams Chavez "anti-Semitic" talk

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.

[Terran1212]

1. I thought he was saying the Wealthy killed Christ for dissenting...

But then again the PC Jewish groups will jump on you for anything. They were cruelly almost destroyed once, and now they take no chances.

[bpilgrim]

50. I think he is comparing todays global empire, US, to the past roman empire

i'm sure he will address these apparently baseless charges himself though and then we will all know exactly what he is talking about. it will be another opportunity to address the global media and rightly bash the neoCONs.

hurry up chavez :evilgrin:

peace

[JerseygirlCT]

69. Uh

"minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ "

yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to think he meant the wealthy there. I wasn't aware of a genetic predisposition to wealth.

Cover it as you will, make it nice and acceptable -- or try to -- the fact is pretty clear: this was a very unfortunate, bigoted statement.

And pretty damned scary.

[IndianaGreen]

80. Read the Spanish transcript!

Haven't you learned by now that everything that happens in America is usually a neocon manipulation?

[me b zola]

98. It is for some a knee-jerk reaction to respond negatively to those labled

...leftist.

And your suggestion is on the mark. People should read the Spanish transcript.

[JerseygirlCT]

130. Someone want to provide a translation?

I'll be happy to read.

But talk of "minorities" and "descendents" doesn't sound too sociological (that is, wealth vs. poverty) to me.

[IndianaGreen]

135. Latin American wealth is controlled by elites and it is generational

The elites are descendants of the white Europeans and they have controlled the wealth for generations. The elites look likes us, and they send their children to America to be educated. They are also less than 5% of the population. The vast majority of the people are poor and they have been kept in those conditions for generations. They are also of Indian or mixed heritage.

In Venezuela, the Catholic Church has aligned herself on the side of the elites! From a religious point of view, the Catholic Church are the descendants of the Roman empire.

You are too American (from a cultural standpoint), and as such, your view of the world is insular and it is shaped by the indoctrination you received in our educational system which it is geared up to mold children into good consumers, not into critical thinkers.

PS: Post 22 has the Spanish transcript. Read the subthread.

[JerseygirlCT]

152. Yes, 22 has the transcript -- in Spanish

The subthread has lots of people saying what they think it means.

I'm looking for an actual translation -- so that I can use my critical thinking skills (amazing, isn't it? I actually have those, American and all) to determine for myself what he said.

I'm not interested in others' interpretations at this point.

If someone would like to point me to a dependable translation, I'll read it, and if I'm wrong about my suspicions, I'll be happy to say so.

Meantime, you can hang on to your snide remarks about my lack of critical thinking and my insular world. As you know next to nothing about me, that's a pretty big leap to make.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

160. I translated it below, if you're interested. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

183. Thank you, I'll read that. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

188. Read the translation, thanks

Although it sheds some light on why people are interpreting him in the way they are here, I still don't understand the use of that phrase (those who killed Christ). Twisting around to make it seem what it's not just isn't working with me.

It's pretty widely assumed code for one thing. And the history of Christian civilization is rife with that one thing being used as an excuse to vilify and kill Jews. I would guess the man is not stupid. If so, why go there if that's not what he meant?

I think words matter. Especially from such a leader. And I think it's also important to recognize that even people who are respected here make mistakes, and have flaws.

If that's not what he meant, I think a clarification is in order, post haste.

If that is what he meant, well that's a damned shame.

[redqueen]

197. I thought Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews.

Guess some want to have it both ways when it suits them to do so.

Ridiculous that this crap STILL gains such traction around here of all places.

[allemand]

198. It was a "widely assumed code for one thing" before the Second Vatican

Council. But in the context of Latin America, you simply can't ignore liberation theology where it assumed an altogether different meaning.

[muriel_volestrangler]

156. "a genetic predisposition to wealth" - there is one, effectively

Children inherit their parents' wealth, especially in a capitalist system. Those with rich parents also get better education and the chance to get powerful positions.

No, it's not a 'fact' that it's a 'bigoted' statement - as you're now saying, your Spanish isn't good enough to tell that, and you haven't seen a definitive translation.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

157. I posted one below. n/t

[centristo]

159. what do you mean "once"? nt

[JerseygirlCT]

185. I'd say: for most of recorded history...

so easily pushed aside, isn't it?

[IndyOp]

2. Okay, Chavez needs to clarify what he meant and

say it more carefully next time. It is important to be responsive, it is not the end of the world.

[JerseygirlCT]

186. At the very least, this was a most unfortunate choice of phrase

At the very least.

Especially from a leader, clarity is of the utmost importance.

[kineneb]

3. Romans crucified Jesus, not Jews

for claiming to be King of the Jews. Just history here, not religion.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. History

While what you say is historically correct, there are many that still believe the Jews were responsible because they "turned" Jesus over to be killed. When many Christians talk about who killed Jesus, the answer is usually, the Jews. Though more people now know this is not the case, many still perpetuate that myth. I sincerely doubt Chavez was referring to the Romans. However, I have yet to see a transcript in Spanish, so I don't know what was said.

[NorthernSpy]

9. Chavez said NOTHING about Jews!

Believe it or not, it's possible to disagree with a man's politics without putting words in his mouth. That's just low...

:eyes:

[jackstraw45]

13. It IS possible for someone on the left to be anti-semetic too

Not EVERYTHING needs to be leveraged into an anti-Bush logic.

Face it, Chavez DID say something about Jews whether you can face reality or not. I URGE you to find ANY people of ITALIAN decent who are insulted by his words.....

[NorthernSpy]

31. Chavez is a Christian! He uses Christian symbolism!

Referring to the Crucifixion story is NOT an anti-semitic act!

Venezuela's ruling class is Catholic. Chavez is shaming them for being unfaithful to the values of their religion.

Chavez was speaking as a Christian, to and about other Christians, using a shared Christian symbolism to get his point across.


And that's all. There's no crime here.

[JVS]

146. Ok, looked at the transcript

While Chavez may not have intended to mean Jews, he seems to be coming close to a longstanding ugly rhetorical tradition, which is best avoided.

[Behind the Aegis]

93. I wish more people realised...

..."It IS possible for someone on the left to be anti-semetic too." Good job! :thumbsup:

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Transcript here

http://www.gobiernoenlinea.gob.ve/docMgr/sharedfiles/Chavez_visita_Centro_Manantial_de_los_suenos24122005.pdf

(29 page pdf; it's on page 18)

Primero, primero hay que reconocer, todos tenemos que
reconocer, yo el primero, el gran esfuerzo de ustedes, de los pioneros, de Fabiola,
de Juan el Alcalde, de la Dirección de Atención al Ciudadano, al Soberano de la
Alcaldía Mayor de Caracas, fíjense ustedes lo importante que es la consolidación
política de la Revolución y el avance de la Revolución. Ya lo decía Fabiola, ya lo
decía Leida: Un buen día se llevaron de aquí a los ancianos ¿por qué?, le pregunté
yo, porque no había dinero, decían, en la Gobernación de Miranda ni en la
Gobernación de Caracas seguramente. No había dinero ¿y dónde estaba el dinero?
El dinero en Venezuela se concentró... así como en el mundo, porque esto es un
fenómeno mundial ¿saben? Acabo de leer esta madrugada el último informe de la
Organización de Naciones Unidas sobre la situación del mundo y es alarmante por
eso es que digo que hoy más que nunca antes jamás en 2005 años nos hace falta
Jesús el Cristo, porque el mundo, el mundo, se está acabando el mundo cada día,
cada día, la riqueza del mundo, porque Dios, la naturaleza es sabia, el mundo tiene
agua suficiente para que todos tuviéramos agua, el mundo tiene riquezas
suficientes, tierras suficientes para producir alimentos para toda la población
mundial, el mundo tiene suficientes piedras y minerales para las construcciones,
para que no hubiera nadie sin vivienda. El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero
resulta que unas minorías, los descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a
Cristo, los descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también lo
crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, allá en Colombia. Una minoría se adueñó
de las riquezas del mundo, una minoría se adueñó del oro del planeta, de la plata,
de los minerales, de las aguas, de las tierras buenas, del petróleo, de las riquezas,
pues, y han concentrado las riquezas en pocas manos: menos del diez por ciento de
la población del mundo es dueña de más de la mitad de la riqueza de todo el mundo
y a la... más de la mitad de los pobladores del planeta son pobres y cada día hay
más pobres en el mundo entero. Nosotros aquí estamos decididos, decididos a
cambiar la historia y cada día nos acompaña y nos acompañará mayor cantidad de
jefes de Estado, de presidentes y de líderes; vean ustedes cómo el pueblo
boliviano... Bolivia, que es el país más pobre de Suramérica y uno de los más
pobres del mundo, esa República fundada por Bolívar y por Sucre, esa que lleva el
nombre de nuestro Bolívar, esa Bolivia, muy rica es Bolivia: minerales, oro, plata,
estaño, petróleo y gas, y tierra muy fértil, y grandes montañas. Sin embargo, es
uno de los pueblos más pobres de este planeta, Bolivia, pero los pobres están
resucitando y acaban de elegir a un indio, por primera vez en la historia, Presidente
de Bolivia.

To me, it really does seem he's talking about the rich, and colonists in particular - in the same sentence as "the crucifiers of Christ", he talks about those who expelled Bolivar, and 'crucified in its own way Santa Marta' (my Spanish is very bad, so the mechanical translation I relied on for that might be wrong) - the first European colony in South America. He goes on to talk about "less than ten percent of the population of the world". Since it's a Christmas broadcast, Christ is a constant theme; I think he really is talking about the rich - which is his standard theme; and in the context I think he does mean the Romans - or maybe the Romans and the Jewish authorities. It would be good for him to say that he meant the rich, and not Jews.

[rinsd]

26. Thanks for the transcript....

..I would agree that a clarifying statement would be best.

But even in context "the crucifiers of Christ" much like the "axis of evil" makes specific reference to a group of people/nations which while not accurate is generally understood who is being talked about.

[Ben Ceremos]

102. President Chavez

makes NO MENTION of Jews as the perpetrators of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is sufficiently clear from the Spanish transcript that Chavez is speaking of the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a minority.(For those who need to know, my background in Spanish is native speaker with 8 years intensive study throughout high school and university. I translate Spanish documents to English and Dutch for a living.) The "killers of Christ" are not the Jews; it is clear he is referring to the super-rich and powerful...not the Jewish people or religion. No clarification is necessary as anyone who wishes to understand what was said will find no impediment in the transcript to such understanding. Anti-semitism is a charge that is thrown around too easily, much as racism and sexism charges. If we attempt to listen, perhaps we will hear...Viva Chavez,y Bolivar, y Marti, y Castro, y Guevara, y Allende, y Morales, y Kirchner!!! Viva el pueblo!!! Viva la justicia!!!

[Flanker]

32. He is clearly talking about the capitalists/rich

I fail to see how the Jews killed Bolivar, or own the world's oil, or that 10% of the world's pupulation is jewish. Purely over sensitivity and not enough research.

[killbotfactory]

38. Just a rough babelfish translation would clue you in

He is clearly talking about the disparity of wealth. Rich vs. Poor. He throws in two examples of people who advocated doing something about it being persecuted by those few elites (AKA a minority) Or is recognizing that a few elites hold most of the wealth while they let the rest starve anti-semetic now? I thought it was common knowledge.

One of his favorite American authors is Noam Chomsky, a jew! He is not an anti-semite, ffs!

[BlueLady]

177. LOL!!

Noam Chomsky is as "Jewish" as David Irving (famous Holocaust denier) -- which is to say, he isn't. It actually takes more than birth to make one a Jew, and an apostate (one who leaves the faith, either by word or deed) is not welcome, here or in the World to Come.

[killbotfactory]

217. Fine, he's a semite, happy?

:eyes:

[allemand]

47. Thanks. The transcript leaves no room for doubt. He uses the expression

"los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo" like liberation theology uses it (meaning the powerful, the rich; there were no capitalists though, at that time ;-) ), and not in the sense that traditional catholicism uses it (there is indeed a lot of anti-Semitism in traditional catholicism in Latin America, no doubt about it).
He goes on to say that they are the same that expelled and crucified Bolivar in Santa Marta ("lo" means "him"), making it absolutely clear that he wasn't referring to Jews, but to the rich and powerful. Also, he was talking about a "minority", and the Jews in Israel under Roman occupation were the majority. The rich and powerful, however, were a minority in all human history, and it is clear that Chavez was referring to them.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. Gracias!

I agree with what you wrote. It seems it could be he is talking about two different groups (and that would mean one group could be Jews), OR it could be he was talking about one group, using two different examples, in that case, I would see it as the "ruling elite." So, I think more clarification on his part would help. Until then, I will give him the benefit of the doubt because I have never heard him make anti-Semitic remarks.

[julianer]

99. Good for you bta

I really doubt that Chavez is an anti-semite. I'm glad to say that we agree, for once!

[mikelgb]

27. Capital punishment killed Jesus.

or the Roman Guvment/Ruler not "the Romans"

[happyslug]

54. More complicated then Roman vs jews.

The Hierarchy of the Jewish Temple did not like Jesus chasing out the Money lenders. It was for this crime he was to be killed, but technically when Christ drove out the money leaders that was NOT a violation of Roman or Jewish law. Thus the trial by the Jewish Priest as Christ saying he was the Messiah. Once that Jewish tribunal ruled Christ had commented Heresy by claiming to be the Messiah (and the Temple Leadership rejecting him as the Messiah) Christ was guilty of Heresy against the Jewish Temple Religion. The punishment for Heresy (as it was for treason) was death.

Now comes the tricky part. Until about 20 years before Christ's Execution Judea had been ruled by Client Kings. A Roman Client King was a King appointed by Rome of that nation's nationality, it the case of Judea, the Client King was Jewish. Prior to Herod's the Great support for Mark Anthony during the War with Augustus, Herod the Great was an Allied King not a Client King. An Allied king had the right to pick his own successor (if acceptable to Rome). Herod with the Fall of Mark Anthony retained his Kingdom, but as a client king who had the right to appoint his successor (in effect more than a Client King, but less than an Allied King). At his death Rome agreed to leave his Grandson Herod Agrippa Succeed him, but only in Galilee, Judah proper was given to another grandson and some cities were given to a Granddaughter (None of Herod the Great's Son Survived him, he had either killed them or died in the palace intrigues of Herod's Court).

Anyway, Herod's Son ruled Judea for ten years after the death of Herod the Great, and then was removed, he was replaced by a Roman of the Equestrian Order. That al rule with no Roman Troops (such as Judea) the Roman Governor was a Procurator was replaced by Pontius Pilate after more ten years of rule (Pontius was replaced after about ten years and then just before the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD a Jewish Client King was Appointed over Judea).

Under both Roman and Jewish law, the Religious Authorities had the right to try people for crimes (including Heresy) but the power to execute was an executive power reserved to the Client King or the Roman Procurator. Thus the issue in front of Pilate was should the punishment for his crime, should Christ be executed, or some other lesser punishment be handled out.

This was complicated for being a Procurator he was a member of the Equestrian order and as such he could NOT Command Roman troops, he could command auxiliaries (i.e. Non-Roman Troops) but not Roman Troops (That was reserved to the Patrician class, through some Proletariat class generals had commanded troops in Republican Times). Now in Roman held areas with Roman troops the Governor was a Legate of Augustus or his successor emperors. Under the Legate you had a Procurator who collected the taxes (Augustus did NOT trust his fellow Patrician with money). In area of imperial rule with no Roman Troops (such as Judea) the Roman Governor was a Procurator, whose only troops were local troops or Auxiliaries troops serving under Rome.

What type of troops Pilate had in Jerusalem can be seen in a story from Josephus in his "Jewish War" where Pontius tried to move troops from Cesarea to Jerusalem. This move caused a Riot for the Troops already in Jerusalem did NOT carry standards that were gods, while the Cesarea troops standards were gods (Probably because the Troops in Cesarea were Greek Mercenaries, while the Troops in Jerusalem were Jewish mercenaries, this would fit in with Pontius being from the Equestrian Class).

Thus Pontius Pilate's position in Jerusalem during Passover. He probably had personal Body Guards made up of very loyal Greeks and Jews, but the vast majority of his Troops were Jewish of dubious reliability if called out by the Temple Authorities. his predecessor had been removed after a Riot in Jerusalem thus a riot was the last thing he wanted (and dead rioters even further up his list of things NOT TO DO). At the same time he had a man in front of his who was NO THREAT TO ROMAN RULE.

Thus Christ "Trial" in front of Pilate. This was NOT a trial in the sense of determining Christ was guilty of a Crime, but what should his punishment be for that Crime. Thus the Crime was Hersey against the Jewish Religion, but the Priest of the Temple then manipulated the Jews of Jerusalem to start a Riot unless Christ was Killed. Given the Nature of Jerusalem (i.e. the largest Temple complex in the world at that time) it was NOT hard for the Priest to get the locals upset with the Possibility of Christ saying the temple was of little consequence compared to Jewish Religious Teachings. All of this was a factor in Pilate's decision to Crucify Christ. Pilate as Procurator of Judea sat not only as a Representative of Rome, But also as the Ruler of Judea and as such enforced both Roman and Jewish laws (when they did not conflict). Thus he executed Christ along with two "Thieves" (Or probably what we would call "Terrorists") who were already scheduled to be crucified.

Now, in some ways the Jewish priests did NOT want to take the blame for Christ's execution, but the conflict can be best seen in Pilate's order of the wooden Plate put over the top of the Cross saying "Here Lays the King of the Jews", in Greek, Aramaic and Latin. The Temple Priests objected to this but Pilate rejected they proposal to have it removed. I view this act as Pilate's statement to the Priests that since you wanted him dead for that Crime that is the crime on his Cross (The Gospels are quite clear that pilate did NOT want to Crucify Christ, hoping the Whipping would satisfy the Jerusalem mob, but when it did not Pilate had Christ executed for the Crime Christ was convicted of by the Jewish Court).

As I said the Jewish Priests wanted Christ death to be blamed on the Romans, and Pilate wanted the whole situation over and done with with the least amount of Bloodshed. Christ execution by the Cross was thus the work of both Groups, but the Gospels are clear it was the Temple Priests who wanted Christ dead, not Pilate and not even the Jewish people.

One last comment on Christ's "Blood Curse" where he condemns "The Jews for their crimes to him". On its face this makes no sense, his followers were jews, his mother who was still alive was jewish, and the people probably doing the actual execution were the personal body guard of Pontius and thus probably Greek. No the Blood Curse is NOT aimed at the Jewish people but the people of Jerusalem who supported the Temple Priest in his Execution. The "Blood Curse" has been used for Centuries as an excuse to attack Jews, but the Curse was fulfilled along with Christ only prediction of the Future that Jerusalem will be destroyed within a Generation (A generation in the bible is 40 years based on Moses leadership of the Jewish People in their 40 years in Sinai). Thus the Blood curse has no significance today except as a sign that Christ made a predication and it come true.

A Catholic View of Pilate:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083c.htm

[BlueLady]

178. Or not...

No offense, but for those of us who don't happen to be Christian, using the exceedingly anti-Jewish "New Testament" as a historical source is preposterous.

All actual historical research indicates that after several Jewish rebellions against Roman rule which were bloodily crushed, the new governor of the region, Pilate, didn't want to take any chances (since Caesar had warned him he had to get the population under control), and thus executed anyone who appeared to be stirring up trouble. Jesus was one of many self-proclaimed messiahs at the time, and Pilate viewed him as a very real threat -- a personal threat, since Caesar would have Pilate removed from his post and executed if the Jews rebelled yet again. Thus, Pilate did anything BUT wash his hands of the matter; he actively arrested and executed Jesus (and lots of other people; he was quite blood-thirsty).

The Jewish role was negligible. Jews had no death penalty for all intents and purposes (the one they did have was very rarely used, and wasn't allowed under Roman law, since only Romans could execute people), and nothing Jesus did warranted the Jewish death penalty, anyway -- it was reserved for blasphemers. Neither the Sadducces (the Temple priests) nor the Pharisees (the more popular rabbis) cared about the Temple courtyard moneylenders; the courtyard was not the Temple itself but rather an open marketplace, so the moneylenders weren't doing anything wrong.

As for the Jewish people wanting Jesus dead, there is no documentation to support that, just the words of anti-Jewish, Gentile Christians written over a hundred years after Jesus' death. Most likely any Jewish response would have been pro-Jesus and anti-Roman, if there was any Jewish response at all; the last time the Jews protested something the Romans did (the Romans hung religious icons on the city wall, which is forbidden in the Jewish religion), several hundred Jews ended up dead.

The history of the time is actually a fascinating read; you should explore it (as well as the study of early Christianity by people like Dr. Elaine Paigels). :)

[happyslug]

196. The two big Jewish revolts were AFTER Jesus time

That is in 70 and 132 AD. Now you did have revolts against Herod the Great but that was over 50 years before and put down by Augustus and Mark Anthony working with Herod. An earlier revolt was put down by Pompey the Great. In these two earlier revolts it looks more like an internal fight within Judea with outside support from Parthia then a revolt against Rome (who did not have troops in Judea, except for these revolts, till the time of the rule of the Procurator. You did have several outlaw bands operating between these revolts, but none that threaten the Government (Thus the mention of "Bandits" in the bible).

Recent archeology studies indicate a general decline in the Rural economy over the time period in question which may have feed the bandit groups but while that was happening Rome was refusing to send in Troops until AFTER the revolt of 70 AD. The reason for this Rome occupied Judea to protect Egypt NOT to occupy Judea. Judea was a border area for Rome's Main Concern, Egypt. To occupy Judea cost Rome Money, thus Rome wanted to keep its costs low, but it wanted to Occupy Judea to prevent a Parthian Attack on Egypt. Thus Rome cared less about what the Jews Thought to did UNLESS IT THREATEN ROME OR EGYPT. As to the Roman administration of Judea, his job was to rule and make sure the area stayed out of Parthian Hands. If that mean killing a Jew or a lot of Jews he was willing to do so, at the same time revolts costs money and since his Provence was NOT a revenue enhancing province, any revolt would cost Rome Money. Thus riots could cost him his job if to much destruction took place OR people were killed. Thus the Story was related in the New Testament makes sense given the time and place. You might have some spin to make the early Christians (Most of whom were still Jews were the Gospels were written) more pro-Romans than the non-Christian Jews, but nothing to really undermine the Gospel Stories.

Yes, I have read about the Time period, including Josephus "The Jewish War" and other books about the time period. It is a fascinating story, region and era, while studied since the time of Constantine. The biggest problem is people with agendas, especially efforts to undermine the Gospels (and a few to support them). While the Gospels are NOT first hand accounts, they are accounts no more then two generations from the time of Christ. Three of the Gospels (All except John) seems to be derived from an earlier version of the story of Christ, now lost. It is believed this was just a list of Christ's sayings and a short story on how he died, to which Luke and Mathew added the birth story. This earlier version is believe to have been written within one generation of Christ. John is the odd man out Gospel, and the latest to be written. It seems to have been added to bring out stories NOT in the other three Gospels (or maybe the original story the three Gospels used as a reference). My point here is the Stories of Christ's death seems to be been fixed earlier than the Gospels, and there is no evidence that the stories are untrue (and no evidence that their are true other what is said in the Gospels). Given that situation I would need more evidence of the Gospel story be a severe spin of what happen than what I have read. The reason for this is I must go with the Gospels until their are proved false or spin.

[rman]

107. Romans got popular support for Christ crucifixion from local population,

which happened to be jews.

[Bridget Burke]

147. Biblical Inerrancy at work.

If the Good Book says so, it must be true!

[JVS]

155. If you have have another account of the event to present, by all means...

present it. As far as I know, the biblical accounts of the crucifixion are the only records of the events (real or not) and there is no evidence outside of the scripture that confirms the very existence of Jesus, let alone details of his death. So we can take the story or leave the story. If we take the story, then rman's statement is accurate based on the narratives that exist. If we leave the story, that's fine too. But what we can't do is make up our own version. To illustrate this, I'll take an example from Norse mythology.

Legend says: Odin rides an 8-legged horse named Sleipnir.

We can say: A) You betcha! B) Bullshit!

We cannot say: Odin rides a 5 legged horse named Rolf.

[Bridget Burke]

158. Thanks for demonstrating REAL Anti-Semitism.

The Romans killed Jesus.

[stepnw1f]

4. This Is a Story?

Boy does Bush need all the negative PR for Chavez he can get?

[Fridays Child]

6. But Mel Gibson said they did it and everyone over at...

...Freak Republic swears that Mel is right.

/sarcasm

[NorthernSpy]

7. but he didn't say ANYTHING about Jews!

Chavez said not one damn thing about Jews, and it was the Roman Empire that crucified Jesus in the first place. The Wiesenthal Center is just trying to invent a grievance to bitch about, for whatever reason.

Disgusting.


:eyes:

[jackstraw45]

10. Wow, talk about wearing dark, DARK shades...

You can't REALLY be that naive, can you?

Yes, I feel for the Romans who for YEARS have been stereotyped as being money grubbing...

:eyes:

[manic expression]

61. Please

Chavez was using the Romans to symbolize imperialists and the elite. Look at the context, as he was speaking of those who went against Bolivar. THAT is about the rich and the elite, not Jews.

[IndianaGreen]

81. Hey bud, I am fluent in Spanish and I am Latina to boot

Chavez was referring to the elites, not the Jews, unless you yourself believe that we were the ones that carried out a Roman death penalty on one of our own. Is that what you meant?

[Cults4Bush]

133. They wont listen to you, they want to play the anti-semite card. Same

people do this all the time no matter what.

They wont delineate the difference , they follow what ever sites like Wisenthal say is true. I had one jump my shit for offering a very different translation and he insinuated I was a liar because I had a Latino friend read it (Puerto Rican).

They also just love to rip on Chavez because he's a socialist. Blow them off its obvious they are biased and ahev a huge agenda. They'll defend AIPAC and Sharon as if these were progressive agenda folks.

Im a Jew but they like to call Jews that disagree with them self loathing Jews. So Ive decided to just not bother with them anymore. They are wrong someone with an unbiased eye can tell that they are.

[Ben Ceremos]

125. Actually,

your shades look opaque to me. Subtlety is often lost on those who react.

[sabra]

11. how do you interpret the quote?

"minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ ... have grabbed all the wealth of the world for themselves."

[NorthernSpy]

20. the rich ARE a minority in every country

Nothing in that sentence specifies Jews!

[centristo]

161. christ-killers

are typically considered to be Jews.

I've read the script and the translation and he may or may not have been talking about Jews. He is definately talking about the wealthy elite, however many people in the world stereo-type Jews AS BEING the wealthy elite. So it can't be said that he is not referring to Jews as well.

Anti-semitism can be subtle and no Jew should have to apologize for being overly sensitive about these matters. Chavez should at least clarify what he meant.

[Rich Hunt]

203. that's fair enough...

However, in a Latin and Christian context, 'those who killed Jesus' means something else : the powerful and corrupt vs. the vulnerable. It looks like he is expressing a progressive view of Christianity which says that Christ represented the oppressed and disenfranchised.

[pretzel4gore]

41. ignorant and greedy....

i wish the spotlight was on the bushviks (recently, a bushvik big shot said president chavez should be JFK'ed ie murdered! another bushvik big shit said 'businessman crime' would be stopped if all jewish babies were aborted! on tv during prime time! (that might have been all crimes of drunkeness if all irish babies were...no it was all speeding crimes if all mexican babies were...?? anyway, he said to end crimes aborting all babies be a good idea...) instead of Hugo Chavez, who at least represents millions of people!

[TheBaldyMan]

103. interpret the quote in a wider context

After going on about the abundance of riches that the earth as a whole has he then states that minority interests did, amongst other inequities, crucify christ. Then continues to rail against minority interests sequestrating assets that should be availiable to all.

A reference to 'Christ Killers' especially in a christian country should set the anti-semitic alarm off. Unfortunately I am not fluent in Spanish and am unfamiliar with Venuzuelan culture so can't say for certain that it was a christ killer quote in the sense that it would in a Klan leaders rabble-rousing speech.

If it is an anti-semitic remark Pres. Chavez should apologize unreservedly for his remarks.

[IndianaGreen]

137. How come the Venezuelan Jews haven't raised the alarm?

Perhaps it is because the speech did not have the meaning that the neocons in America want to spinned it into.

I'll bet that we will be hearing Condi Rice join the chorus soon!

Are Americans stupid by choice?

[TheBaldyMan]

210. I think it was Venezuelan jews that informed the Weisenthal centre.

Cults4Bush posted that it was a smear job by a RW shill, the OP link gave reuters as the source but the website for the Simon Weisenthal centre confirms that it is the origin of story.

Indeed it looks like the tip-off came from South America. Chavez' office has declined to comment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

I don't see anything there saying it came from Venezuelan Jews

only a reference to a Simon Wiesenthal Centre office in Argentina. I notice that in both the English and Spanish versions, they seriously misquote Chavez, in a similar (but not identical) way to how Alexandra Beech did nearly 2 weeks ago. "Smear" looks an even better term, having seen that page. I'd love to see how the SWC explain the large difference in what they claim Chavez said from the actual transcript.

[Don1]

140. What quote?

Show the Spanish and what is in between the word "Christ" and "have", designated by the ellipsis.

This is a common trick by fundamentalists who quotemine scientists, too, and include out of context half-quotes like this in their propaganda.

[rpannier]

48. Trying to invent a grievance?

Disagree. The basis for centuries of persecution of Jewish people is based on the faulty premise that "They are the killers of Christ." The black plague was blamed on Jews in many parts of Europe. In addition, another faulty premise of the anti-Jewish set, is that they own the world. If you doubt me, go to any rightwing hate site and you'll see both accusations leveled at Jews.
One can reasonably hear what he said and question what he meant.

[Cha]

49. Be interesting to read what

Chavez has to say about this cause he usually responds to the criticism spewing forth from the USA.

[Clutch Cargo]

8. Chavez needs to be a man and apologize. n/t

[NorthernSpy]

12. for what -- insulting the Roman Empire?

:eyes:

[Clutch Cargo]

14. No, for insulting Jewish people.

Your spin on this is not working. Cut your losses.

[0007]

28. Argh! Go do you're cargo thingy clutch, and some light reading

on time off might help.

[Clutch Cargo]

33. LOL! OK, I will.

as soon as I figure out what it is that you just wrote!

[IndianaGreen]

67. I am Jewish and I don't see what you are ranting about!

Sounds to me like you are spewing rightwing shit trying to convince people that Chavez said what he didn't say in order to lend credence to Bush's future "liberation" of Venezuela to save "the Jews, the Christians" and the (rich) "people" of Venezuela.

This dog won't hunt!

[me b zola]

104. Hey, I used to clutch my cargo!

...as a cluster bomb would be lowered into the belly of a ship, I'd clutch the hell out of that tag line.

Learn to speak spanish and not be so scared of the few world leaders who refuse to be intimidated by bush* and his criminal cabal. Truly, those few leaders are on the side of humanity. Some day you will thank me. :smoke:

[IndianaGreen]

139. The poster probably worked for Air America or Flying Tigers

and we know for whom they worked.

[Ben Ceremos]

126. Perhaps

the insult is felt more deeply by you than by someone who actually read the quote and bothered to interpret it according to its content. Reaction is not a means of understanding.

[Colorado Blue]

214. I agree. Thanks.

[davepc]

15. Italians are a minority?

I think you have to be naive to believe he was referring to the Romans.

[rinsd]

17. Hey its the descendants of Pontius Pilot...a pox on their houses! (nt)

[rinsd]

16. Do you really think the statement shows concern....

...about the descendants of Pontius Pilot controlling all the world's wealth? And who was the minority that killed Jesus?

Hmmmm where have I heard that so & so controls the world and who is the ethnic group that is usually fingered in such talk....

[NorthernSpy]

25. chavez is likening today's ruling classes to the clique that ruled Rome

For pity's sake, I should've thought that would be obvious!

[rinsd]

30. LOL...

...yes he did this in a radio address to his people who picked up on his "obvious" reference to the small ruling class of Rome as opposed to shorthand for the Jews which Catholics have used for centuries. Yeah that's the ticket!

When one talks about the crucifiers of Christ to a general audience, both the speaker and the audience know who is being referenced irregardless of historical accuracy.

[NorthernSpy]

36. gawd, it's like seeing reds under every bed...

When one talks about the crucifiers of Christ to a general audience, both the speaker and the audience know who is being referenced irregardless of historical accuracy.

So every time anyone refers to this absolutely central element of the Christian religion, we all know that he really means to slander Jews, while his unobjecting audience silently maliciously agrees.

Personally, I'm inclined to give Christians a little more credit than that -- but that's just me...

[rinsd]

40. When one is referencing the crucifiers....

...to a predominantly Catholic audience, sadly there is an agreement in who is being referred to.

That does not mean necessarily that audience agrees that the Jews were the crucifiers, just that they know who the speakers is talking about.

Something similar would be when referring to the Axis of Evil we know who Bush is talking about even if we disagree with his designation.

[killbotfactory]

42. The next sentence he mention Simon Bolivar

He was talking about the rich vs. poor.

The people who crucified Christ. The people who persecuted Bolivar (The Spanish who are Catholic).

If you take the first part out of context, it sounds bad. In context, it is clear what he is talking about.

The minority he was referring to where the rich elites who have controlled governments at the detriment of the common people throughout history. Not the jews. Just because there are racists who have try to claim all the "rich elites" are jews, does not make everyone who talks about the subject of rich vs. poor anti-semites.

And one of Chavez's favorite American authors is Jewish. Noam Chomsky.

[rinsd]

43. "And one of Chavez's favorite American authors is Jewish"

Jeez you almost had me at some agreement until that last line.

Reminds me of the racist who claims to have black friends.

[killbotfactory]

45. Oh come on...

Does he have a history of anti-semetic speech? No.
Does he admire a prominent jewish author? Yes.
What does that author primarily talk about? Powerful vs. Unpowerful. The elite vs. the common people. Rich vs. Poor.
What does Chavez primarily talk about. The same.

[Cha]

51. You handled that Strawman

rhetoric very well!

[Ben Ceremos]

127. Real racists

don't have black friends if they are white supremacists/whereas blacks who are racist don't generally have any non-black friends, etc...homey. Pres. Chavez respects the work of an intellectual (Chomsky), which implies that he doesn't consider Jews anathema...Prof. Chomsky would likely agree with the substance of Pres. Chavez statement as he would be able to discern that the ruling class in Rome crucified Jesus. I wonder how many wealthy (and also Jewish) Roman elite there were asking for that "rabblerouser's head"? The ruling elite had the authority and power to crucify, whereas the Jews may have had a grievance against Jesus...but Jesus was a Jew, so the anti-Semitic innuendo in this thread is actually ridiculous.The Wiesenthal Center, as respected and respectable as they are jumped the pony on this one. I am extremely hard pressed to find the anti-Semitism in the Spanish language transcript of Pres. Chavez words. Context, context, context.

(I am reminded of the time a friend of mine,Lawrence, very attuned to racial issues due to unpleasant experiences, heard some lady in a shopping mall saying to her son that "The black ones are no good..." After being pissed off at the apparent racist slur, I informed him that she was talking about the licorice whips her son had just offered. Since I had seen the exchange of the son offering black whips and mom wanting a red one...she didn't like the black licorice...anyway, Lawrence got my drift afterall.) Context, context, context.

We will never have any harmony if we set ourselves up for insults that are never actual...peace to all the world's people.

[LostinVA]

123. I was raised RC in the 60's and 70's and was never taught this

I was taught Jesus was killed by the Romans, with tacit approval from the local Jewish leadership. However, I was ALWAYS taught that the "Christ Killers" were, indeed, ROMAN government official. And our diocese was at least 50% Italian-American. So, I don't necessarily buy this anti-Chavez spin. I emailed the speech to a Mexican friend of mine who is married to someone Jewish, and is raising their kids Jewish... just to see his take on it.

[Malva Zebrina]

18. For a thousand years, Christians taught that the Jews crucified Jesus

Indeed, it was indoctrinated into Christian thinking by the ancestors of today's Catholics, and exploited by Hitler. Indeed, it was a basic theology of Marin Luther also.

and indeed, it goes on today. Except for those who would embrace Judaism as a stepping point toward the great "rapture". These extremist fundamentalists seem to have captured quite a few of Jews (for Jesus), and they preach that in the "rapture", some 144000 of converted Jews will be saved and the rest will be immolated because of their disbelief--and I do not have the exact figure on that, but ai am sure it is in the millions--and they, the raptured ones, in their rapture, get to watch from the heaven they will be bodily beamed up to, as the Jews, the ones who did not convert, twist and turn in the mythological, but based on faith beliefs, lake of fire, as well as the rest of us who view the whole thing as the insanity of religion that contributes to intolerance and hate.

After all,that seems to be the only recreational activity they will enjoy in heaven--
watching others burn and die. And, by all accounts, they rejoice in this scenario.

[DerBeppo]

19. the lengths some will stretch to defend chavez

puts cirque du soleil to shame.

yes, this was a christmas eve rant against romans. that makes perfect sense.

[NorthernSpy]

21. the lengths some will go to accuse everyone of anti-semitism...

Clearly, Chavez was ranting against Venezuela's ruling class. No surprise there. And I think a lot of poor and working class Venezuelans would heartily agree with him.

[Flanker]

24. It was a christmas rant against CAPITALISTS

Seriously have people never even heard any of his speeches? this is the millionth time he has alluded as Christ being the first socialist and Judas the first capitalist, he has never mentioned the jews, this is not even quoting out of context but lower.

Seriously the oversensitivity is disturbing. Here is the entire transcript if you can read spanish and are brave enough to read a multihour speech.

http://www.gobiernoenlinea.gob.ve/docMgr/sharedfiles/Chavez_visita_Centro_Manantial_de_los_suenos24122005.pdf

[IndianaGreen]

34. and you are fluent in Spanish?

or do you depend on NY Times and WSJ to tell you what is going on in Latin America?

[Cha]

53. The lengths some will go to

to pile it on Chavez.

[Ben Ceremos]

128. The lengths to which some will stretch

just to be able to take offense. Get serious and read the transcript, I have read it and I have found no anti-Semitic statement in Pres. Chavez words. Furthermore, Pres. Chavez needs support in order to help build a better world than this capitalist hell-hole we are so intent on suffering under. Pres. Chavez is not an anti-Semite so just getyour head over it and move along.

[David__77]

23. this is bullshit...

The comments were NOT anti-Semitic. The ROMANS killed Jesus Christ. And he further mentioned other injustices throughout history; he was not simply speaking of this incident alone.

[IndianaGreen]

29. This is a smear and a false charge

You guys need to read the speech in Spanish and not rely on MSM or on those that in the past have supported Bush's military adventurism.

This reminds of Noriega giving a speech before the US invasion. Noriega said that the US to provoking Panama as if a state of war existed between the two countries. When the speech was translated into English and broadcast by CNN, the translation was that Noriega was declaring war on the United States. Poppy Bush repeated the same misrepresentation, perhaps knowing full well that the speech was deliberately misstranslated.

Do not fall for this shit again!

[bemildred]

35. Paranoid mis-translation.

He is not talking about Jews, he is talking about the established Church, the pharisees and publicans.

[killbotfactory]

37. This is ridiculous

But, hey, it appears to be working, just look at the responses in this thread.

Now we have a drug-running, pro-terrorist, anti-democratic, anti-semite, dictator who we've already supported a violent coup against and just "happens" to sitting on a large supply of oil.

What will be the next baseless charge thrown at him?

[IndianaGreen]

46. Chavez kills kittens, rapes children, and worships Satan!

There will be people in here that will believe that, just as they believe every piece of trash the Bush dictatorship puts out, either directly or through their proxies.

[Clutch Cargo]

52. There are also people who believe

that everytime Chavez poops, a fragrant rose pops out of his dung pile to freshen the air.

[killbotfactory]

55. Yep, if you don't believe he is evil incarnate, you believe he is perfect

:eyes:

[Clutch Cargo]

57. Neither. I believe he is just a two-bit dictator. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

58. The only dictator in here is George W. Bush

Unlike Chavez, Bush steals elections, ignores the courts, ignores the constitution, proclaims himself a supreme leader, Fuehrer, Caudillo, Duce, when he says that as commander-in-chief he can do what he wants, to whom he wants, when he wants.

[manic expression]

62. Yeah, right...

a two-bit dictator who won an election that was signed off by Jimmy Carter as legitimate. :eyes:

Try again.

[Crunchy Frog]

82. He's a democratically elected head of state

which is more than can be said about our own Chimp in Chief.

I was bothered when I first read about the statement, but with further clarification and context, it no longer looks as if it was intended as anti-Semitism.

So, is your grievance against him that he is ostensibly anti-Semitic, or is it that he's a dictator according to your definition, which seems to be "someone who legitimately won a democratic election", or is it that he's taking control of his nation's oil resources from others, and using them to benifit his own people. This seems to be the major complaint that the Repubes have against him.

I really wonder why someone at DU would have an issue with him, other than the fact that he's not perfect, and some DUers seem to demand that of everyone.

[tkmorris]

87. There we go!

Now don't you feel better all out in the open so everyone can see you?

[LostinVA]

122. PLease, I am dying to know how he is a dictator

Considering he was LEGALLY elected in a FAIR election, and hasn't done anything dictatorish that I've been able to see.

[Ben Ceremos]

129. Pres. Chavez

is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Two-bit dictator resides further north (in DC)...
I trust Hugo Chavez to do what is right for the people of this world. He is not interested in wealth, he is interested in justice. He works tirelessly for his people and uses his national wealth to aid the poor, unfortunate and dispossessed. He is paying for the medical treatments of thousands of visually-impaired people, he is creating systems that serve the people and not just the ruling oligarchy, he has built bridges of cooperation and assistance throughout Latin America, he provides American citizens (yes, also the Jewish ones)with discounted oil and gas, he has spoken truth to power and has survived at least 2 coup attempts (that actually were organized by Bushco.) because his people support him. Very few dictators have this kind of popular support. "You speak with forked-tongue, Clutch."

[redqueen]

199. BWAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh how it amuses me to see rethug talking points so well regurgitated.

Such a well-thought-out explanation of the reasons for your stance!

Bravo!

[julianer]

101. There are also people who believe

that right wing lurkers infect this site flinging around accusations of anti-semitism in order to split us.

[daleo]

39. He could have meant Romans

But it was a stupid thing to say.

On edit - At any rate, a subject too sensitive for Chavez to leave any room for doubt about. The North American media would love to have a reason to demonize him.

[still_one]

44. The Jews did NOT kill Jesus

Crucifiction was Roman NOT Jewish, and the area was under Roman occupation and rule, so the Jews did NOT have any authority

However, I would like to bring up two points:

1. Jesus was Jewish

2. Christians would NOT even have a religion if Jesus was NOT crucified. That is the whole point he had to die for their sins

[happyslug]

56. You Forgot the most important concept

Under Christian Doctrine, Christ was the "perfect" Sacrificed to God (Being God himself) and thus ended any need for temple sacrifices. As a non-Jewish Christian I can NOT claim to participated in that sacrifice if the only people involved were Jewish. Thus to benefit from Christ's death WE ALL HAD TO TAKE PART OF THAT SACRIFICE. Thus the Combination of Greeks, Romans and Jewish people involved in Christ's Death, to show it was ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD that sacrificed him to God. Thus it was NOT the Jews that Crucified Christ but everyone, and as such everyone is a beneficial of his death.

[drduffy]

59. kinda dumb

shit. It is obvious what he implied. I really like Chavez for a lot of stuff be he misspoke today. Whether he believes what he said or not, the utterance itself implies poor judgment in terms of thinking before you say something stupid. It is hard to imagine such a statement to have any positive effect tactically or strategically. Just negatives.

[Cha]

63. A lot of us don't get

that impression..it's not obvious at all.

[K-W]

95. Its obvious based on an out of context, translated quote? EOM

[Ben Ceremos]

131. Kinda dumb...

shit you just posted. Nothing in the statement is anti-Semitic. But I guess you are certain that it is, so...By the way, do you read Spanish? This accusation of anti-Semitism smells of anti-Hispanic racism because if you had actually read the Spanish language version you would realize that you are mistaken, entirely so...nothing is implied except in the mind of the aggrieved.

[OKthatsIT]

60. He should have said , "NEOCONS" or BLIND ZIONISTS

It doesnt have anything to do with semitism.

So many people in Israel pray for enlightenment, worldwide. So many good people live in Israel who would like the violence to stop....so many people in Palestine would like this also. Common people, like you and I, who have families and lives to live.

Chavez should know better than to simplify prejudices in this manner...its so so Nazi? I hope he understands that we expect him to be bigger than this.

[robcon]

64. I disagree, OKthatsIT

You wrote: "It doesnt have anything to do with semitism."

It has EVERYTHING to do with scapegoating the Jews, and presenting himself as a divider to appeal to the "cheap seats" of Venezuela. He's out of control, IMO.

[manic expression]

68. What are you talking about?

He was clearly referring to the wealthy and the elite. Read it in its context before jumping to incorrect conclusions.

[Solon]

71. Unless you are fluent in Spanish, or see an objective translation...

STFU!!!! The context is much more important, and if you look at that ENGLISH sentence, it seems "Out of Sorts" so to speak, in other words, it seems like a mistranslation of the SPANISH. How stupid do people have to be?

[Codeine]

72. It's not a mistranslation.

the argument is not about what he *said*, but about what it *meant*.

BTW, STFU is not conducive to discussion.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

74. Why is your interpretation of what "it meant" more valid

than anyone else's?

[Solon]

77. Hey Guy, doesn't the sentence in question....

"minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ ... have grabbed all the wealth of the world for themselves." Seem like even a decent English translation to you? Not to mention that the context was taken out, both the beginning and middle is missing, after all, but even this section seems to be a bad case of "Engrish", or more accuratedly, Spanglish, than what a native speaker would actually hear or read.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

78. I would like to read the original text and would be glad to translate

accurately.

[Solon]

79. Look at post 22, I think someone already posted it there. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

84. here

"El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero
resulta que unas minorías, los descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a
Cristo, los descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también lo
crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, allá en Colombia. Una minoría se adueñó
de las riquezas del mundo, una minoría se adueñó del oro del planeta, de la plata,
de los minerales, de las aguas, de las tierras buenas, del petróleo, de las riquezas,
pues, y han concentrado las riquezas en pocas manos: menos del diez por ciento de
la población del mundo es dueña de más de la mitad de la riqueza de todo el mundo
y a la... más de la mitad de los pobladores del planeta son pobres y cada día hay
más pobres en el mundo entero."

The world holds enough wealth for all of us, but as it turns out a few minorities,the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who kicked Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way in Santa Marta, over there in Colombia. A minority has taken over the world's resources, a minority has taken over the gold, silver, minerals, water, good land, oil, of all the riches and have concentrated these riches in the hands of the few: less than 10% of the world's population owns more than hals of all the world's resources and to the.. more than half of the world's inhabitants are poor and every day world poverty grows.

[Solon]

85. Thanks...

Now it seems to make sense, it seems as if he is trying to connect the ruling class of Ancient Province of Judea(Romans, Pharisees) with the 21st century "Nobles" that we have today(CEOs, Neo-Liberals). I looks as if he was talking about the economic minorities WITHIN these various nations who abused their power. That seems like a condemnation of Pharisees and Romans not Jews in particular. After all, at the time, the Jews were the poor majority ruled by a rich minority.

[wordpix]

163. I think Chavez was referring to the ruling elites, not to Jews

[TheBaldyMan]

207. still sounds like Jew Banker International Conspiracy to me

"unas minorias, los desciendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Chriso"

I should have learned at my age that you shouldn't look up to people too idealistically. My heroes over the years have all too often turned out to have feet of clay.

I really respected Chavez and his remarks have deeply saddened me. The fault is mine not his.

[Codeine]

91. It's not.

My point was that the translation is accurate, but the meaning is open to interpretation. I see "descendants of those who crucified Christ" to be classic code for Jews, other see a reference to the rich and powerful. It's going to require clarification before anybody knows for sure.

[Bridget Burke]

150. DId the Jews kill Simon Bolivar?

Actually, he died of TB. But he was bitter & disappointed.

After liberating most of South America from Spanish rule, he dreamed of a continent-wide "United States" of South America. His wishes were thwarted by reactionaries--mostly, in fact of his own social class. He was born an aristocrat but rose above it.

[Bridget Burke]

187. Learn to read Spanish.

And then get back to us.

[Solon]

75. Sentence Structure and context are supremely important...

when it comes to translations from one language to another and it is extremely easy to screw that up. People seem to make assumptions from one sentence that is taken, not only out of context, but out of language entirely. I strongly doubt native speakers of Spanish took it as many English speakers on this thread do from this translation.

[Ben Ceremos]

136. Wise as always, Solon.

I read it in my native language and I have not found the implied anti-Semitism. I have posted amply trying to influence the discussion, but "insult perceived is insult received" for too many of us...
Viva Chavez!!! If you realized what he is trying to do, most of you would stop standing in the way.

[bemildred]

76. It is a mistranslation.

Translation is precisely about what it meant.
In the circumstance, I tend to think it is a deliberate mistranslation, too.

[1932]

89. Same here. Chavez says "those who crucified christ", and that was Rome.

And his comments about wealth -- he is not saying that there's a secret conspiracy with a few wealthy people always pulling the strings.

He's talking about empire -- he's talking about imperialism -- Roman and American.

[Ben Ceremos]

134. So we are now

qualified to judge someone's intention and meaning? Last I checked, I have no access to anyones head, only their words. I read the words, in Spanish, and they don't say anything about Jews/"Christ-killers".
The context is very clear, the words are also very clear. Pres. Chavez has not insulted the Jews.
By the way, misinterpreting someone's words is not conducive to discussion either, it is just as dishonest and disrespectful as STFU. I don't know what you "meant, but your words were certainly clear.

[Ben Ceremos]

132. "Out of control"

better describes your wild assumptions. I take offense at your "cheap seats" comment. The Bolivarian Revolution is working to eliminate any such group. Pres. Chavez DID NOT INSULT THE JEWS. This is based on a very detailed, multiple reading of the Spanish transcript and I would add, none of my friends of Jewish faith who have read this have found any reason to make accusations such as you are flinging. But then again, many of my friends are very open-minded, intelligent and honest...

[IndianaGreen]

83. You wouldn't know a Nazi if he bit you in the ass!

and you don't speak a word of Spanish and you don't know jackshit about Latin America and her culture, nor you have a clue that the cultural descendants of the Romans were the ones that colonized the Americas and enslaved her people.

Entiendes lo que te dijo?

[TheBaldyMan]

105. sorry I can't speak spanish at all

so i suppose the answer is no.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

118. This is the only illustration I could find for "idoit"

I've never seen one, either.

[Judi Lynn]

119. I'd bet that "idoits" are too damned intelligent to find an accurate

translation of remarks made in another language before automatically jumping to the conclusions handed to them by people who are not native speakers, either.

An "idoit" would only have to read the remarks by posters who are fluent in Spanish to grasp the simple truth this man's remarks were shaded for right-wing purposes.

I wasn't surprised this morning to discover the article is being carried in the Voice of America News. Amazing? Probably not.

[LostinVA]

124. Chavez is far from an idiot

[Ben Ceremos]

141. nocares,

idiot is spelled i d i o t. But I guess you would not be expected to know this as your argument is clearly irrational and emotional. So long, thanks for playing.

[Bridget Burke]

151. I've noticed that those who are proud of speaking English Only...

Generally aren't very good at English.

[54anickel]

66. Trying to lump him in with Iran's President Ahmadinejad? n/t

[Malikshah]

70. Yup--

it's all so much easier to invade Venezuela, Iran, etc.

We'd have done Syria by now, but they don't have enough oil to make it worth it.

Oh...by the way.

I read somewhere that Chavez eats babies. But you didn't hear it from me.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

73. BLATANT MEDIA LIES-don't believe it! Chavez said NOTHING against Jews

What has this media become?

Why do they waste the "Floor" with Demonizing?

This is a misuse of power.

Let's boycott demonizing and war mongering media outlets
and support media organizations that provide an actual service for humanity .

[newswolf56]

86. Missing context in Liberation Theology suggests no anti-Semitism:

Liberation Theology -- IMHO the only good thing ever to come out of Christianity -- argues from selected Biblical texts that Jesus was a true revolutionary: essentially a Roman Empire version of Marx sans the Marxist divorcement from religion (which was in fact a reaction to the viciousness of Abrahamic theology, i.e. the Inquisition, pogroms, Jewish passivity in the face of persecution, etc.). Popularized by the Jesuits throughout Latin America -- for which the Jesuits have since been severely punished by the increasingly pro-fascist papal regimes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI -- the central tenet of Liberation Theology is the notion that the plight of Jesus is the plight of the proletariat: "Jesus' death is unique because he historicizes in exemplary fashion the suffering experienced by God in all the crosses of the oppressed."

From this perspective, "minorities...descendents of those who crucified Christ" are the capitalist oligarchies that rule the world now just as their economic ancestors ruled it in the time of Rome: they are "minorities" -- a word with a substantially different connotation in Latin America than here -- precisely because they make up less than one percent of the total population.

Chavez is absolutely terrifying to the capitalist oligarchy -- more terrifying than anyone since Lenin and Trotskii, especially with his plan for a union of Latin American socialist states. I do not doubt for an instant the Weisenthal Center has been deliberately mis-informed (probably by the Central Intelligence Agency) of the impact of this speech, this in an effort to nullify any possible Jewish support for Latin American Marxism or even socialism.

(Written in great haste -- with apologies for any typos -- because I have an 8:45 p.m. appointment; will be back -- should anyone want to discuss my hypothesis -- about 9:45 p.m.)

Meanwhile here is a link on Liberation Theology:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/liberati.htm

For more, Dogpile the topic itself.

[Kralizec]

88. And the RW media attack of Chavez continues ahead, full steam. (nt)

[anotherdrew]

90. maybe he meant the Roman Empire and the modern version thereof

[thebigidea]

94. um, if he meant Jews, wouldn't he have been saying it all along?

its not like Chavez is known for being shy about his opinions or reserved at his speeches.

If he meant Jews, he would've said Jews.

This is not a man that minces his words or is known for using coy codespeak.

[Judi Lynn]

96. He's not evasive, is he? When he has had something on his mind

to share, he has always said it in such clear, unambiguous terms, no room was left for debate. His characterizations of _Bush and Condoleeza Rice were creative and enjoyable!

[jpgray]

97. Yeah, the Jews sure did a number on Simon Bolivar

What the fuck, Wiesenthal Center? This is talking about monied elites, not Jews.

[wordpix]

164. according to this, Bolivar died of tuberculosis, not b/c of Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Bolivar

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[incapsulated]

108. So, you are "for" calling Jews rich, Christ-killers, I presume

Because it is a "fact"?

First, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Romans did.

And most of the Jews I know, and that's a lot of them, ain't rich.

But regardless, that you are unaware, or prentend to be, of the fact that Jews have been persecuted for centuries because they were accused of being "Christ-killers", inaccurate as it may be, doesn't seem to bother you, so I don't know what to say.

[rman]

110. Romans got popular support for Christ crucifixion from local population,

which happened to be jews.

"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.

The fact that is serves as an excuse to justify.... does not mean it is not true.
Then again the fact that it's true doesn't mean it is a valid excuse...

But the fact that it is not a valid excuse does not mean it is not true.

According to Wiesenthal, citing certain historic facts = anti-semitism.


It's like saying that stating the Germans exterminated millions of jews is evidence of anti-Germanism.

It's like saying that criticism of the Bush admin = hating America.

It's like saying that criticism of Hillary Clinton = hating Hillary.

Those are ludicrous arguments.

[incapsulated]

112. You know what

I'm not going to argue this. Because your premise, that calling Jews "Christ killers", or that they are *wink* "associated with wealth" is some nit-picking oversensitive reaction is so offensive that I refuse to continue.

So long.

[rman]

113. I think it's oversensitive to call citations of historic facts

offensive.

Also note that "Christ killers" and "*wink*" are your words, not mine.

[incapsulated]

115. No

It is that you are trying to turn what are well known, longstanding issues; the accusation that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, and that the Jews have some disproportionate, or in any case "unacceptable" amount of wealth, into a "historical discussion" of "facts", while refusing to acknowledge the very real persecution that ensued from those who believed those arguments, to be offensive. Using DU arguments over Hillary as some sort of analogy only makes your complete lack of understanding even more evident, if not exposing something worse.

And that is really the last post I'm making on this subject.

[rman]

116. Where did i refuse to acknowledge the persecution

of jewish people?

I did in fact mention the extermination of millions of jews in nazi germany.

Nor did i ever say jews have "unacceptable" amount of wealth - in spite of your putting the word between quotation marks.

For someone who does not want to discuss the matter with me, you sure do put a lot of words in my mouth.

on edit:
I should add that i think the Romans do have more responsibility in the Crucifixion of Christ then the Jews do - saying the jews are responsible is like saying the American people are responsible for the war in Iraq. In a way they are, but certainly not more so then the power the be (or in case of the crucifixion: the powers that were).

That's also the core issue of the accusation of anti-semitism against Chavez: he was referring to the rich and powerful, not so much to jewish people specifically.

[IndianaGreen]

145. Jews are not part of the elites of Latin America

and they will never be because they are Jews while the elites are Roman Catholic.

[Bridget Burke]

153. He's just giving us an an example of real anti-Semitism.

Just as the speech by Chavez shows none at all.

Compare & contrast.

[UncleSepp]

109. You DARE associate yourself with the White Rose?

May the ghost of Sophie Scholl find you in your sleep.

[rman]

111. I'm sure she'll be pleasant company

[UncleSepp]

114. Chavez ought to have realized the breadth of his audience

Posters here have pointed out that in liberation theology, Chavez's statement would refer to the Romans and not to Jews. Outside of it, his statement would be typical of veiled anti-Jewish propaganda. Chavez's audience, for every public statement, includes not only his countrymen, not only Latin America, not only native speakers of Spanish, but also speakers of all languages all around the world. His audience includes sympathizers, supporters, friends, and enemies. His mistake here may have been in speaking as if he were only addressing those who have come up with him in struggle in a common cultural context.

Chavez' unfortunate words may give air to an ember and start a fire, embers still warm, embers that yet glow with only the thinnest covering of sand. Whether or not it was his intent to feed anti-Jewish hatred, Chavez still bears responsiblity for having spoken the old codes. The intention behind one's word is not what materializes; it is only the word. One must be careful what one says. In the world of the mind, the word has the power of creation, and one is responsible for what one's words create.

[IndianaGreen]

142. Get off your Anglo-Saxon cultural niche!

Your own schools don't even teach the real history of the English-speaking world, much less the history of the Americas.

The Roman Catholic Church is on the side of the elites. Chavez has even called the Venezuelan Cardinal a Judas for having aligned himself with the elites.

You read a short piece of mistranslated text, and you are now an expert on Venezuela and Latin America. I'll bet you think that Taco Bell sells real Mexican food!

[UncleSepp]

166. Get off your high horse, pal, I used to be an interpreter

Not everything that isn't Spanish-speaking is Anglo-Saxon.

You have no idea what I know or don't know. You don't know where I've been. You don't know what languages I speak. You don't even begin to understand where I'm coming from, and have read bias into my comments that does not exist.

I used to be an interpreter - not for Spanish, for Russian. I have done interpretation at international conferences with cabinet-level ministers and translated press releases from countries at war. I also studied international business, with an awful lot of emphasis on marketing. As a result, I spent quite a bit of time studying cross-cultural communication problems exactly like this one.

Anyone who addresses a multicultural audience, as an international political figure does, has to understand that not everyone shares the same cultural experience or mother tongue. If it is at all possible to misinterpret concepts or mistranslate speech, it will happen. For this reason, it is important to examine one's speech to see what might be taken wrong in translation, and to make one's speech clear. This is the problem in what Chavez said - the concept is too easy to get wrong.

You are all geared up and ready to accuse me of being stuck in my own culture (nevermind that you don't know what my culture is) when in actuality, I made my comments out of multicultural and international experience. I think you need to get the chip off your shoulder.

[Ben Ceremos]

143. Consequently,

Pres. Chavez words are clear and distinct and not anti-Semitic, Thank you.

[UncleSepp]

168. What he said translates badly

I get the sense of sarcasm or something in your post? Am I missing something?

What he said seems fine in Spanish and within its original cultural context, but translates in English and in a Euro-American cultural context into a couple of the commonest code phrase for anti-Semitism. The translation doesn't seem to be a gross mistranslation, either - it's that what he said translates into idioms that carry meaning outside the literal.

This problem isn't that different from any number of instances of companies using marketing campaigns that fail to translate across borders, unintentionally using images or phrases that are innocent in one context but offensive in another. It's just more dangerous, and badly timed.

Chavez has put himself out there as a politician of international scope, and the ears of the world are listening. As such, he needs to be a little more careful about things like this. Even when he only speaks to Venezuela, he speaks to the world.

[Bridget Burke]

154. And their ignorance.

All these monolingual Americans, eager to accept a flawed translation. They get the message: "Chavez Bad."

[UncleSepp]

171. Not speaking Spanish doesn't make you ignorant or monolingual

That is one of my pet peeves - I'd see job ads advertising for a person who was bilingual, not specifying the language. I'd call and say "Hey, I speak four languages - ENglish, RUssian, German, and French. I can also fake it in Danish and DUtch."

No, bilingual apparently means "English and Spanish."

I lived in Miami. I had people call me an ignorant Anglo for not speaking Spanish. I was studying foreign language education to be a Russian teacher, but no... I was an ignorant Anglo who only spoke one language, because obviously, there are only two languages worth speaking.

[Bridget Burke]

184. Yes, but accepting a translation uncritically is not smart.

Would you accept an inflammatory statement translated from a German leader's speech--without reading the speech in German?

Since you are obviously good with languages, perhaps you should work on your Spanish. Reality check: In much of the USA, "biligual" means English & Spanish. Or you could finish your education & become a Russian teacher.

Being pissed off all the time is not good for your health. Perhaps Miami is not the place for you. (Neither is Houston.)

[UncleSepp]

195. Let's look at your incorrect assumptions.

First: I didn't accept the translation uncritically - I pointed out that because others will accept translations uncritically, it is important to ensure that what you say cannot be translated into something offensive.

Second: I am finished with my education. I have been out of graduate school for eight years, thank you very much.

Third: I am not pissed off all the time. You don't even know me and have no basis for making that assumption. Yes, I was irritated by the bilingual assumption in employment ads. I was also irritated by employment ads that asked for 10 years of web development experience... in 1998. Imprecise speech annoys me, whatever the language. If I am pissed off often, it's certainly not because of living in Miami, because..

Fourth: I live in Seattle! You might have noticed the "When I lived in Miami..." is in the past tense. Russian is a common language here among the immigrant community. I have used Russian and German around the neighborhood here, but not Spanish. This is still not entirely relevant, because...

Fifth: I do not have a US-centric outlook, but a global one. English is a very commonly spoken second language. Other than English, German is the most commonly spoken language in the EU. Outside of the EU, Russian is a commonly spoken second language among educated people in Africa, and is not all that uncommon among educated people in Latin America. When I am with my sister's family, I muddle through in Spanish and English, and we manage to understand each other.

Oops, did you also assume I was a "typical Anglo" with no Spanish-speaking relatives? My brother in law is from Ecuador. I have Spanish-speaking family in Miami.

You aren't arguing with me. You're arguing with your own assumptions. You might want to consider first dropping the assumptions, then the condescending tone, and then working on your reading comprehension. For all the arguments you've made about Spanish, you sure don't seem to understand English very well!

[Bridget Burke]

205. Perhaps I'm wrong about you.

But you are still wrong about what Chavez said. Any statement can be translated by enemies to mislead. And the Jews did NOTHING to Simon Bolivar.

[UncleSepp]

211. Did you read what I said about what Chavez said?

What Chavez said was prone to mistranslation, specifically, mistranslation into something that is offensive in a Euro-American context. I specifically said that he probably didn't intend it to be offensive. I still hold it to be true that a person is responsible for what they say and for the effects of what they say. Part of that is recognizing one's true audience, and planning for cross-cultural misinterpretations. It's not a person's intentions that have an effect on his audience - it's what the audience hears, even if what the audience hears isn't what was meant. In Chavez's case, he knows that the US press is no friend to him. That's all the more reason to ensure that a turn of phrase doesn't give them ammunition.

Even on a Western airline, for example, one ought not pin white carnations to the lapels of first-class concierges. It doesn't matter that the gesture is, at its core, innocent or that the gesture is originating from within a culture that would see the flower as just a nice flower. What matters is the reaction of a passenger with a fear of flying the moment the concierge wearing the funeral flower says "Is there anything I can do to make your journey more comfortable?"

The airline in the example above was United Airlines, and the flight left Hong Kong. The story is supposed to be true, but even if it isn't, it's still a decent example of the kinds of things that can go wrong in international business.

Politics is not so different from marketing. It's about selling one's ideas. Advertising isn't about personal expression, and neither is politics. A beautiful but misunderstood ad campaign doesn't sell any widgets, and a beautiful speech that is misunderstood doesn't sell any ideas. In politics, unfortunately, one may accidentally end up selling the misunderstood idea, and not the original one.

[allemand]

120. Another example of liberation theology in a Chavez speech:

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.

[cleofus1]

121. ok bucky

it is very apparent that he was speaking metaphorically about capitalism and the united states...

i guess you had to be there.....geeez

[The Backlash Cometh]

138. Well, let's be frank here, Abramoff is a PR disaster for anyone who

has ever had to defend against the "Jews own the world" theory. What I would like to see to undue the damage, is for Israel to come clean with us once and for all and to give up their moles or sleepers in this country; and to extradite all of Abramoff's buddies who are hiding within their borders.

[Ben Ceremos]

144. ROFLOL!!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

149. No harm in asking.

I think that they know, that we know, that they know, that we know that they spy on us and that this is going to be a major media issue very soon. So I expect Israel to come forth with some kind of reconciliatory gesture because they can't afford to have us as an enemy.

[redqueen]

201. You really think that will be a major media issue?

You're far more optimistic than I.

[The Backlash Cometh]

216. Yes, I do.

I feel some serious undercurrents.

[Tight_rope]

148. Awe Fuck people need to give it a rest. Damn talk about nitpicking.

[Herstal]

162. That sound pretty anti-semitic to me.

It is clear that Chavez is referring to Jews. "Minorities" proves it.

[redqueen]

202. Because the rich & powerful aren't a minority?

Please.

This is so tired, but I guess those that like the way things are are desperate to keep them this way.

Good luck.

[Herstal]

212. I find it disgusting that so many will allow a guy a pass...

because they like his politics.

[redqueen]

215. A pass on what?

Non-existent anti-semitism that's drummed up by rightwing blowhards?

Of course progressives would ignore rightwing lies, but that's not giving anyone a pass, is it?

[VirginiaDem]

165. After some thought and research, it's anti-semitic IMO

For three reasons:
1) the following quotation--specifically "unas
minorías"--is suspicious. "El mundo tiene para
todos, pues, pero resulta que unas minorías, los descendientes
de los mismos que crucificaron a
Cristo"

2) the liberation theology excuse is possible but there is
also a tradition in Latin America of anti-semitism. I would
argue it is a rather low-grade version but it's there. I've
studied this and I've lived in Latin America. It is not
unusual to hear off-the-cuff remarks about Jews. I'm not
implying that everybody is that way or that Latin America is
on the verge of pogroms. I'm just saying it's there on some
level. I'm also not ruling out the liberation theology
argument, just leaning against it.

3) the following links make an interesting argument, seemingly
well researched, into the background of one of Chavez' most
influential friends/mentors/associates/whatever. The above
statement looks remarkably similar to this person's line of
thinking and there appears to be little doubt about his
anti-semitic leanings.
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/
http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/ceresole/caudillo.asp


I'm open to alternative explanations (that are civil). I am
also open to the possibility that the author of the first link
above is hopelessly biased but I'm gonna want specifics
regarding the specifics of his research.

[muriel_volestrangler]

170. But you stop the 'quotation' without completing the sentence

which goes on to talk about the descendants of the people who
expelled and 'crucified' Bolivar. Add in the context of the
surrounding sentences about the resources of the world being
owned by the rich 10%, and it looks just like criticism of the
rich and powerful - which is Chavez's normal political stance.

[VirginiaDem]

173. I stopped the quotation for a reason.

Because it's the suspicious part. The reference to Bolivar
does lend credence to the liberation theology argument
discussed above but it does not prove it. You (and all the
others above) are correct that a focus on the divide between
the haves and have nots is Chavez' normal stance. That's a
strong point in your favor. But it is perfectly plausible that
Chavez both cares deeply about the divide between the rich and
the poor and is anti-semitic. It's also perfectly plausible
that both beliefs could find themselves inserted into the same
sentence.

This looks like the case to me based on the other available
evidence.

[Cults4Bush]

167. Alexandra Beech started all this BS!!! A RW shill who is a anti-Chavez

activist, all the anti-semite website comments are directly correlative back to Alexs' original commentary on it.

I can't believe it but I think we have some people here who have not done a lick of research and just automatically assumed the worse of Chavez... again.

Red scare still alive and kicking? Check.
Using the anti-semite slur no matter how remote and unproven? Check.
Believeing the first and worst bad thing that comes along because you want to? Check.
Being Jewish and being disgusted with the Likud, Sharon and Israel policy getting you labled a "self loathing Jew" at DU (no matter how much you detest terrorism as well)? Check.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

169. Are you referring to proud active freeper Aleksander Boyd? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. No, to Alexand*ra* Beech, I think

who, one day after Chavez's broadcast, deliberately misquoted Chavez as follows, in a piece on her blog meant to compare Chavez to Hitler:

Celebrating on December 24, Chavez said ‘Christmas is a rebellious, revolutionary, socialist Christ...the descendants of those who crucified Christ have taken ownership of the riches of the world, and they have concentrated it in a small number of hands.”

alexbeech.blogspot.com

Beech is frequently anti-Chavez.

[Cults4Bush]

175. Muriel I butt heads with you sometimes intellectually

(though I may not post a reply to you about it, usually CT stuff ;).

On this case I am glad to have someone who is as logical and clear headed as you try and be, I know your arguments lend more weight than someone like me.

Thank you.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

181. Sorry I misread the first name. Being at work I'm trying to keep this

on the DL. I have to check her bullshit out.

[Cults4Bush]

174. Not sure does she go by that as well? google her up she gets linked

to by the RWnuts (and fundie loving Robertson types Im sure) everywhere and her agenda is stated up front.

So many here are picking everything Chavez said cherrying it up to fit their fears, manipulations and indeed their own agendas. Its bogus I've now had two different spanish speaking friends look his speach over and in particular the lines in question.

The first one knew about the controversy and basically called it abunch of shit and w ehad a good laugh about it. I posted about it a day or so ago and a poster here tried to flag me out as a liar. So I tried out another firend who I consider extremly intelligent and same thing they even took the time to explain the nuances, the inflection, tone and context. Still not good enough for the ad homenim attacker.

So last night I had another friend who is lets say, politically unmotivated and didn't know a damn thing about it. She said and this is nearly a quote "he's basically saying that powerful minorities are always oppressing the poor majorities, and that Christ was a rebel against this and so was this Bolivar guy"... like I said not a driect quote but very much the gist.

Me personally, I know how smear campaigns work and this stinks to high heaven of an off the cuff attack that had legs enough to warrant further interest by parties who pick a fight at the drop of a dime over anything they percieve as a slight no matter how much info contradicts them. Kind of like the bush admin IMHO.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

182. Boyd is a dude that started the vcrisis web site. He's kind of a psycho.nt

[VirginiaDem]

176. Noberto Ceresole appears to be a real person

and my second link appears to be to excerpts of his writings, which are clearly anti-semitic. Google Norberto Ceresole and you get information pretty much confirming him as an anti-semite and confirming that he was influential in Chavez' intellectual development but that, importantly, Chavez still considers him a friend but disavows his anti-semitism. This could mean that he realized that Ceresole is a whack-job vis-a-vis anti-semitism or could be covering his ass. Both are plausible but, again, I'm leaning toward the latter.

I have no doubt that right-wingers are providing the bulk of this information; if their facts are correct then we on the left have a credibility problem, not them. So let's figure out what about their argument is wrong. Do you have any evidence that contradicts it or just argument-ending assertions?

[redqueen]

204. So you're just going to assume Chavez is lying?

But it's those who disagree who have to provide evidence and not assertions?

Uh huh, yeah.

[VirginiaDem]

220. not quite

No, I have no evidence that Chavez isn't telling the truth regarding his disavowal of his good friend's virulent anti-semitism. I also reserve the right to harbor skepticism regarding the public statements of politicians on controversial matters. I'm sure there are plenty people who would prefer to take him at his word on it. That's a perfectly legitimate judgment. I have in fact provided other evidence in above posts on the topic at hand more generally that have been conveniently ignored by our resident Chavistas. It seems to be a matter of fact that he has a good friend and one-time political advisor/mentor/whatever who is a textbook case anti-semitic nutball.

The bottom line is that if you're judging my impartiality I'll remind you that I've actually bothered to consider--and have openly admitted--the possibility that I could be wrong. I wonder how many here could honestly say the same.

I've researched and written about the Chavez presidency in my Ph.D. program in the past. My job was to be objective as possible; despite my many misgivings about Chavez generally, I came to a fairly pro-Chavez conclusion. It's really quite possible to be relatively objective about hot-button issues when one is willing to consider the possibility they might be wrong. But, hey, I'm definitely in the wrong place for that...

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

180. Why don't you provide some background for your claim?

A link to an article would be helpful.

That impression just never has come through in anything I've ever seen about the man. It was especially not in evidence when the masses of poor Veneuzuelans poured into the streets and overturned the kidnapping and coup of Hugo Chavez a couple of years ago.

[Bridget Burke]

190. Prove it.

Type fast.

[Cha]

194. No Chavez doesn't..he only

hates corruption but then you knew that.

[HuffleClaw]

189. this is some odd

i've NEVER heard of chavez being any sort of an 'anti-semite', and now this pops up out of nowhere? i think this is probably a purposely misinterpreted mistranslation for political reasons. its long been known that some just have to demonize chavez. they've tossed all sorts of labels at him, hoping for one to stick. i think if he was an anti-semite, we'd have heard loads about his 'leanings' before. i'm dubious about this charge.

[redqueen]

206. "if he was an anti-semite, we'd have heard ...about his 'leanings' before"

That's the logical way to look at it, yes.

However some are intent on seeing what they want.

[Emillereid]

191. I thought the Romans killed Jesus. It was the ruling class of Jerusalem

that wanted it done. I think the Weisenthal center may be stretching a bit -- at least I hope so. Chavez doesn't strike me as someone who would openly espouse anti-semitism.

[Judi Lynn]

193. Truly! He's the target of racists right in his own country.

He would be very unlikely to be a racist himself. He seems much bigger than all that, anyway, doesn't he? He's got far bigger things to think about.

[SeattleRob]

192. this is just another lame attempt to discredit Chavez n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

200. What motive would the Simon Wiesenthal Center have to do that?

:shrug:

[dusmcj]

209. tensions are high worldwide related to Jewish issues and Israel

incidences of antisemitic violence have been escalating slowly in western Europe (e.g. France). Outside the US, there is an upsurge of support for Palestinian rights with a corresponding downturn in sympathy for Israel. Since PNAC has been exposed as a Likud PAC which manipulated American foreign policy in part for what it (a community of expatriates) thought was in Israel's best interests, and with the emergence of the Pentagon intelligence-to-Israel and Abramoff money-for-settlement-security scandals, the world climate of public opinion regarding Jewish and Israeli issues is turbulent. It's perfectly reasonable for the Wiesenthal center to be on a hairtrigger.

Personally, I would interpret Chavez' message as referring to the usual suspects in the socioeconomic ruling elite, not some world Jewish conspiracy. God help him if he's idiotic enough to turn his opposition to the usual suspects into an antisemitic crusade, but I don't think he's that dumb. It doesn't seem part of the constellation of the new tide of antiglobalization/antiimperialism, those folks are too smart to be deluded that way.

[Colorado Blue]

213. ? ? ? ?? ? ??

PNAC is a Likud PAC???? Oh PUHLEEZE.

[Cults4Bush]

219. The roots between the Neocons and Likud are far and deep...

Seriously do a couple of hundred hours worth of research on them and you'll see the connections quite blatantly. As a Jew I find the Likud every bit as reprehensible as the Neocons.

Neocons essentially (not en total but for the most part) formed PNAC.

[allemand]

208. Chavez: "they crucified Christ because he fought against the powerful"

"Cristo un gran revolucionario ¿ah?, por qué creen ustedes que crucificaron a Cristo por qué?, ¿ah?, ¿quién sabe? Porque decía la verdad, porque luchó por el pueblo, porque luchaba por los pobres contra los poderosos que imponían que dominaban y terminó entregando su vida por la justicia, por la paz."

Aló Presidente # 114
desde la Parroquia La Vega, callejón 19 de abril.
Caracas, 4 de agosto de 2002
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:cfTm2oNqbJcJ:www.chez.com/lito/a0114.htm+%22que+crucificaron+a+Cristo%22&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

Christ (was) a great revolutionary, ah, why you think did they crucify Christ, why, ah, who knows it? Because he said the truth, because he fought with the people, because he fought with the poor against the powerful who imposed their domination, and he died giving his life for justice, for peace.

Case closed. :)

[killbotfactory]

218. Wow, he sure hates those jews!

Oh wait, no. No he doesn't.

But hey, why let proof and logic get in the way of blatant manipulation by right-wingers?

[Moderator]

221. Locking

No longer Latest Breaking News. Thank you.