Jewish group denies Chavez charges that it represents U.S. policies

[Behind the Aegis]

CARACAS - The leader of the Simon Wiesenthal Center denied Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's allegation that it represented U.S. "imperialist" policies and stood by its interpretation of recent remarks Chavez made as anti-Semitic.

Rabbi Marvin Heir, founder of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, called the charges by Chavez "preposterous."

"We do not speak for the United States. We are an institution that has a commitment to speak out against anti-Semitism," Heir told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Friday.

The Los Angeles-based center had demanded a public apology from Chavez over comments he made during a speech on Dec. 24.

According to a transcript of the speech, Chavez said: "The world has enough for all. But it turned out that some minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ, descendants of those who threw Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way in Santa Marta, there in Colombia, a minority took the world's riches for themselves."

more...

[Jim Sagle]

1. Citgo, or no? Don't blow it, Hugo.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Find out the facts before you comment

Don't become a tool of the neocons!

[Jim Sagle]

13. I'll comment any time I feel like.

And I haven't forgotten your ill-advised and fact-free slam at Howard Dean.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Dean was wrong!

Dean parroted neo-liberal nonsense!

[Jim Sagle]

31. No he wasn't and no he didn't.

And by the way, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground, not VENEZUELAN Underground.

[clitzpah queen]

35. That is just Jingoistic Ignoramus crap talk, JSagle

There's a hefty number of folks on DU that like to approach the ideas of "DEMOCRATIC" in a more Internationalist context.
The same forces poised to undermine our own domestic democracy are poised to pull off another Chile 1973 if they got the chance.

[Jim Sagle]

39. I didn't sign up for the Wobblies. If you did, fine.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

44. Here are Dean's offending remarks that Mr Sagle is defending

I will point out that it was Dean, and not Wolfie, who first raised the issue of "left-leading" governments in Latin America, governments that Dean referred to as "regimes" despite that they are more democratic than our own.

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Interview With Shimon Peres; Interview With Benjamin Netanyahu

Aired January 8, 2006 - 11:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DEAN: Look at what's happening in Latin America. This president, while saying that he wants to further democracy and capitalism, is driving people in the opposite direction.

We need real leadership in this country and we don't have it right now.

BLITZER: Are you blaming the president on the elections in Bolivia or on the elections in Venezuela? Is that what you're saying?

DEAN: We had an enormous opportunity, when this president took office, and he said he was going to reach out to Latin America. Instead, he has turned them off. He's been high-handed with them; he's rejected them.

He's ignored the economic plight of their folks. And so, we're getting something that I think most Americans wish we didn't have, which is left-leading regimes in these places. We need a president who will work constructively and cooperatively with our allies around the world so that we really can move capitalism and democracy further into the world and not turn off people. When you turn people off, as the most powerful nation in the world, they are obviously going to do something that is not in our best interest. And that's exactly what's going on right now.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. Yeah, come on Howard don't blow it. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. I don't agree with Dean's remarks about Chevez or Venezuela at all.

[Jim Sagle]

53. As I explained verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly the other day,

the main thrust of Dean's comments was how Bush's hamfisted approach to Central America is antagonizing everyone down there.

Dean's remarks were justly praised all over the blogosphere as a textbook perfect example of how to handle the Republican whore media. Anyone who has a problem with it is not acting in the Democrats' interest.

[madfloridian]

56. Kudos.

Yes, you are right. That is exactly what he was doing.

[IndianaGreen]

74. Ask the people of Venezuela, I rather support them than you

and your penchant for thinking of your portfolio first and the human condition dead last!

[madfloridian]

78. I think you know that is an unfair statement.

What is happening to you? I would much rather support the PEOPLE of my country than those of any other country. I don't need support of any kind, IG, and I don't expect it.

You imply I am not concerned about human beings everywhere, and that is just not true at all.

If you prefer another country, that is your right. I don't much like our leaders at all, but I am still an American citizen. I love the people here overall, and I try to stand up for the rights of others

IG, we have so many battles here to fight. I fight for Medicare, and my husband and I have worked with those who have trouble getting drugs they need. We have fought many battles just to fix things here in America.

You need to quit attacking everyone who does not put other countries first. I honor and respect them, but we have enough battles here. That was an ugly statement you made to me.

[fishwax]

58. nice to know there's no room for dissent or disagreement

I agree with your analysis of Dean's remarks, though I wish he hadn't said "left leaning" as if that were some sort of cancer. The gist of the argument is that: the bush administration and his conservative allies have presented Hugo Chavez as a sort of boogeyman that is an enemy of the United States, but the fact is that if Chavez is a monster, he is one created by the Bush administration, which has completely ignored the concerns of the people in Central America.


i might quibble with the precision of his language, but i think dean's strategy (as usual) was right on.

[Jim Sagle]

52. This IS a Democratic board, isn't it?

Not a Green board.

Not a Venezuelan board.

If it's not to your liking, there are other boards.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

59. .

:eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

60. The poster seems unaware his Republican pResident has involved

himself inappropriately in Venezuelan internal affairs, using tons of American taxpayers money, and dirty, dishonest, evil actions behind the backs of the very population which didn't elect him as pResident.

We are very much connected to the destructive, dispresectful actions taken by our right-wing Republican pResidents, even if we don't find out about them for twenty or thirty years when it's far, far too late to do anything about them.

I would expect more maturity from a ten year old, for sure.

[IndianaGreen]

75. No, Sagle supports neoliberalism

He is among those misguided Democrats that think that our problems can best be solved by putting a better manager in the White House and by minor tweaking of policies.

Those of us that disagree with Sagle, want to end the war in Iraq now, end US imperialism, and reverse all the conservative policies going back to the Reagan Administration.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

79. Why stop there? We should take the shit all the way back

before Nixon. Maybe even Eisenhower who seems to be the least psychotic Repube to occupy the White House. Anyway I know exactly what you mean.

[bpilgrim]

77. it is a popular refrain with a small minority here

i think they stole it from the DLC :shrug:

peace

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

73. "Blow it"?

What are you talking about?

[barb162]

2. Judging by his comments in this article, Chavez

is an ignorant blowhard

[IndianaGreen]

5. No, you are the one that is knee jerking

and you don't know the facts.

[barb162]

7. you're wrong

Don't tell me I am knee jerking, I read the article. I will comment in accord with what I read in the article.

Chavez said: "The world has enough for all. But it turned out that some minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ, descendants of those who threw Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way in Santa Marta, there in Colombia, a minority took the world's riches for themselves."

[IndianaGreen]

9. He is talking about the elites of Latin America

and guess what buddy? None of them are Jews! Do you even care to know why? Because they are Jews, and as Jews they will never be accepted by the Roman Catholic European-blooded elites.

People of mixed ancestry are also not part of the elites!

If you want to find racism and anti-Semitism, just look at Chavez's opponents.

[barb162]

11. see post 10

[IndianaGreen]

15. Thank you, barb162

I had my fill of the CANF anti-Semites and they are just like the Venezuelan elites in their attitudes towards people of color and Jews.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Not to butt in...but what is "CANF?" Thanks. eom.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Cuban-American National Foundation

The most rabidly rightwing organization in Florida.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Thanks.

I know nothing of them. Sounds like a google search is in my future. :)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Perhaps you should have read post #10 first!

[IndianaGreen]

26. I don't think he did. We are all cool now!

:-)

[barb162]

27. thanks BTA

[Behind the Aegis]

28. You're welcome, buddy!

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

71. You need to read more

[IndianaGreen]

3. Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks

Thanking 1932 for finding this article! This is not the first time that SWC has supported neocon policies, or been a party to PNAC goals!

Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks
By MARC PERELMAN
January 13, 2006

The Venezuelan Jewish community leadership and several major American Jewish groups are accusing the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment by charging Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, with making antisemitic remarks.

Officials of the leading organization of Venezuelan Jewry were preparing a letter this week to the center, complaining that it had misinterpreted Chavez's words and had failed to consult with them before attacking the Venezuelan president.

"You have interfered in the political status, in the security, and in the well-being of our community. You have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don't know or understand," states a draft of the letter obtained by the Forward. Copies of the letter are also to be sent to the heads of the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee, among other Jewish groups.

"We believe the president was not talking about Jews and that the Jewish world must learn to work together," said Fred Pressner, president of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela. The confederation is known by its Spanish acronym, CAIV. He added that this was the third time in recent years that the Wiesenthal center had publicly criticized Chavez without first consulting the local community.

Last week the Wiesenthal Center wrote to Chavez, demanding that he apologize for what the center said was a negative reference to Jews during a Christmas Eve speech. The center also asked the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay to "freeze the process" of incorporating Venezuela into Mercosur, a regional trade bloc, unless the Venezuelan president publicly apologizes.

http://www.forward.com/articles/7189

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Conflating on your part.

The response from the SWC was not supporting the neo-cons or PNAC party goals. The SWC acted on what it thought was an anti-Semitic attack (jibe). There is no "conspiracy" here. Many Jews have been called "Christ-killers," myself included. Times have slowly started to change and people have learned the real history of the Crucifixion, as opposed to the bigoted history. Though most people know Jews were not responsible, there are still quite a few who haven't joined the 'real' world.

In a perfect world, this is how it would have gone down:

Chavez would have never used that line, realizing it could be misinterpreted, or made it clearer he was talking about "elites." No problem.

That didn't happen...so there are few more scenarios to avoid where we are now with, what is basically a non-issue.

Scenario A: Chavez makes the speech with no changes. The SWC contacts the Venezuelan Jewish community and gets their opinion. The SWC makes no claims to anti-Semitism. No situation occurs.

Scenario B: Chavez makes the speech with no changes. The SWC makes the claim that one of the lines is anti-Semitic. Chavez corrects the problem, by stating it was not about Jews, but ruling elites. He doesn't even have to apologize, just issue a clarification. Situation resolved.

But what happened instead? Chavez makes the speech with no changes. The SWC makes the claim that one of the lines is anti-Semitic. Chavez clarifies the situation, then adds the SWC is doing the work for the US government; to which the SWC responds with the OP. And, here we are.

Who is responsible? Both, the SWC and Chavez, are responsible for the current situation.

[IndianaGreen]

8. The only problem here is US aggression against Venezuela

and other progressive governments in Latin America. Let's not become unwilling tools of American imperialism by believing every piece of bullshit we are fed.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Yes, US aggression, not SWC aggression.

They were responding to his speech. They didn't issue an edict before he said anything. If you have read any of my posts on this, you will see I was not 'sold' he was making an anti-Semitic remark, and that more clarification was needed because it could have been interpreted two different ways. I read the speech in Spanish, so the problem was not translation, but interpretation. That happens a bit. look at your exchange with another DU poster in the other thread about this topic. It was a simple misunderstanding because of an misinterpretation. There was no malice on anyone's part. Sometimes, we misinterpret. It is a fact of life.

So, let's not make everything into a conspiracy or think that those who don't follow our own personal thoughts on a particular subject are "unwilling tools of American imperialism."

[IndianaGreen]

18. I understand, BTA

I fully share your sentiments expressed in your post.

Shalom!

[TheBaldyMan]

12. Did you read the article ?

I share your concern whenever the phrase Christ-killer comes up, I'm not an expert in S. American culture but the Venezualan Jewry themselves put his comments in a liberation theology context. I'd trust their judgement when it comes to the nuances of political speeches rather than someone that's resident in Europe.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Of course I read the article. I posted it.

Did you read my entire post? I said had the SWC contacted the Venezuelan Jewish community, we might not be where we are now. After reading Chavez's follow-up, I do believe it was about the ruling elite, but rather than just saying that and moving on, he poured gas on the dying fire by making the absurd statement about the SWC being an "agent" for the government. Thus, the new statement, was issued a response from the SWC. And here we are.

[TheBaldyMan]

21. I beg your pardon

I thought you were criticising Chavez for his first speech rather than the follow up.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. That's cool.

It seems we had our own "misinterpretation." :) It happens. :toast:

[barb162]

25. Well when that first speech is read it very much seems to

indicate he's either talking about Jews or the Romans, as in who killed Jesus or allowed him to be killed. His use of metaphors isn't made clear at all. Well if he is talking about the usual capitalists using the native peoples and oppression of them, it's a whole different story. At the same time, I think the SWC was correct to speak out against the remarks against Jews if it thought they were remarks against Jews.

[EST]

34. Please pardon my simple-mindedness.

I rarely am sure about my own view of the world and try to achieve as thorough an understanding of my fellow humans as I can, not withstanding that I am not closely attached to the situation. In the real, no-shit, me-you-and-the-fencepost world, is it at all conceivable that SWC could be serving as a neocon tool, if only on a situational, selective basis? I do not wish to see ghosts where there are none. Your kindly aid to my understanding would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

40. I would say that it's more than concievable

especially in light of this link that I just found. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x138951

It appears that SWC just gave a major humanitarian award to Rupert Murdoch. http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17804871%255E663,00.html

While not proof positive, I would say that this event at least leaves me feeling highly suspicious about their political agenda.

[IndianaGreen]

42. SWC should not have awarded Rupert Murdoch anything!

Murdoch is as much a friend of Israel as Pat Robertson is!

The ideological company that SWC keeps, and their attempt to prevent Venezuela from joining MERCOSUR, tells me that defending neo-liberalism has become part of their agenda.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. It's looking that way to me.

To tell you the truth, I knew nothing about the organization until I started reading about this latest Chavez flap. My inclination was to give them the benefit of the doubt, but all the evidence that I'm seeing; the award to Rupert Murdoch, the attempts to meddle in that MERCOSUR business, and the almost knee-jerk willingness to condemn Chavez on other occasions (have they said anything about Pat Robertson's recent remarks about Sharon?), all this seems to point to their having a definite RW political agenda.

I'll be curious to see if anyone here can come up with a defense of this award to Murdoch.

[EST]

50. Thank you.

The picture gets a little clearer.

[President Kerry]

76. The US gov't has used agents in the past to undermine

DEMOCRATICALLY-elected leaders in Latin America, including supporting coups-d'etat. In the context of that, it is understandable that Chavez is leery of SWC being used as an agent, given that their claims were somewhat knee-jerk. Checking with the reaction of Venezuela's jews, as you suggested, before accusing Chavez of anti-semitism would have been a good start.

[barb162]

10. clarification: he's talking about gentile business elites

So what does he mean when he says:"...the descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ..." It seems he means gentile business elites.

From the article:
"Both the AJCommittee and the American Jewish Congress seconded the Venezuelan community's view that Chavez's comments were not aimed at Jews. All three groups said he was aiming his barbs at the white oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era, pointing to his reference to Bolivar as the clearest evidence of his intent."

One official noted that Latin America's so-called Liberation Theology has long depicted Jesus as a socialist and consequently speaks of gentile business elites as "Christ-killers."

Thank you for posting the second article

[IndianaGreen]

30. The Vatican under JPII opposed liberation theology

The Venezuelan Catholic Church has taken the side of the elites against Chavez and his supporters among the workers, the poor, and the peasants. IN liberation theology, Jesus would have sided with the poor against the elites.

I real life, Jesus was a Jewish patriot executed by the Roman Occupation government on the charge of sedition.

[1932]

55. Apparently the current Pope was instrumental in pushing Leonardo Boff

to the margins of the Catholic Churck.

[TheBaldyMan]

32. my early warning system went off when I read about his speech

when the news first broke, there were quite a few threads on the subject on DU. I am afraid I was very hard on Mr. Chavez, thinking that his comments were at the 'International Jew Banker conspiracy' end of the spectrum. I am relieved that I seem to have been in error.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. I was with you, to a point.

My early detector went off, too. I saw two points of view when I read the Spanish transcript, but withheld my condemnation because I was waiting for further clarification. Had the speech been by Pat Robertson, there would have been NO question in my mind the statement in question was anti-Semitic. However, I had never read anything about Chavez having an anti-Semitic streak, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Isn't it funny that sometimes it is a relief to be wrong!? :) However, just because we (including the SWC) were wrong, doesn't mean we should be any less vigilant against anti-Semitism. I am wagering you agree with me on that point too. :)

[USA_1]

38. Transcript of Chavez's Speech

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


The words are all in Spanish. The specific reference that he made is on page 18. It is only too clear that he did NOT make any reference whatsoever to Jews.

Chavez is a Sephardic name. Like him, I am also a Hispanic Catholic of Sephardic background and have an excellent knowledge of the Spanish language. He made absolutely no pejorative reference to Jews.

[Karmakaze]

36. Racism - thats what it is.

Purely European culture ASSUMING that what THEY do, everyone else does. So when Chavez referred to the "killers of christ" it did not matter that in Latin American culture "killers of christ" is a codeword for rich elites. No what matters is that in European culture, "killers of christ" is a codeword for Jews.

SWC made a racist assumption, made NO ATTEMPT to determine the truth, and now CONTINUES the racism by suggesting that CHavez is the one at fault for not ensuring that the European culture's interpretation be given supremacy. As for SWC forwarding the imperialist agenda, it is CLEAR that they are.

They are demanding that Venezualan culture conform to THEIRS. That is cultural imperialism, and an important part of American imperialsm - be like us or else. Remember, it wasn't Venezuelans who persecuted Jews, it was Europeans, yet Venezuela should not use their own interpretation of Christianity, because it may be mistaken BY EUROPEANS as being similar to theirs?

As for the statement that SWC hasn't had a bad thing to say about Chavez before now, that is also untrue. They have been looking for ANY EXCUSE to attack Chavez, from an incident where Chavez refered to his opposition as being like the "Wandering Jew" to him refering to Spains Asnar as being like Hitler.

If SWC ISN'T forwarding American imperialism, why are the so suddenly following everything Chavez says in an attempt to find something to attack him for? Why the sudden interest in Venezuela? Why the refusal to even consult with Venezuelan Jews? Could it be becase SWC has an agenda that has NOTHING to do with fighting anti-semitism, and everything to do with American imperialism?

Also note, TWICE now SWC has demanded other Latin American nations not allow Venezuela to join Mercosur, a regional trade bloc. It seems to me that THIS is what SWC is really hoping to accomplish, and the ONLY reason for that is to further US government interests in regards to isolating Venezuela.

[Judi Lynn]

37. Bush's administration will take any avenue available to it to create

problems for Chavez, and interfere in his Presidency. Propaganda through every devious channel will be planted until and if _Bush will ever leave office.

You many remember the right-wing Cuban "exile" Otto Reich created criminal levels of abuse planting propaganda for Ronald Reagan concerning Latin America, from the "Office of Public Diplomacy" in the State Department, and could have been in real legal trouble if he hadn't been protected.

Republican power-mad Presidents will not discipline themselves, they intend to control absolutely everything. Perception molding, creating national attitudes toward their "enemies" is simply child's play to them. Very easy to accomplish. Too bad so many people swallow it whole, completely indifferent to whether it could be real or not.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. You're making too much sense....you KNOW that's unacceptable!

[K-W]

48. Right, the SWC was at the very least highly incredulous.

And at the very least the story was disseminated by the right wing. Its very possible they acted based on thier preconcieved notions about Chaviz's bad charecter. Perhaps some right wing operatives clipped the quote and faxed it to jewish groups. Perhaps there is a right winger at the SWC. It doesnt matter. What matters is that Chavez is at the but end of a constant string of smears and lies from the US, mostly produced by the government and business class, and this is a part of that string whether the SWC intended it to be or not.

[UncleSepp]

51. Is your CAPS LOCK key sticky?

Unstick it. Nobody wants to be yelled at. Your opinion isn't any more important than anyone else's that you should shout while others merely speak.

[Karmakaze]

54. Caps is an effective means of emphasis in the written word...

and easier to use than HTML markup.

Besides, it is sixteen words out of three hundred and thirty three, far from excessive. But hey attack my posting style rather than what I said, because you obviously can't do the latter.

[UncleSepp]

67. My response to your argument is in another thread

Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2040871&mesg_id=2041754

I don't care to make a duplicate response to a duplicate post.

Here's the deal: in general, using all caps in posts is considered shouting. It's generally considered to be rude and it's really irritating. Perhaps you weren't aware of general etiquette. I rather suspect that you simply don't care what the general etiquette is, and most likely consider yourself to be above it.

In short, you post like a ranting n00b and really don't deserve a response.

[NorthernSpy]

49. I don't believe that the SWC really speaks for Jews...

And they certainly don't speak for Jewish Venezuelans. I think that the Wiesenthal Center HAS been serving as the voice of imperialism, despite the protestations to the contrary.

[jpgray]

61. Since when did Jews betray Bolivar?

The Wiesenthal Center is just making the wrong interpretation here.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. That wasn't the statement in question! n/p

[jpgray]

63. Absolutely it is

"But it turned out that some minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ, descendants of those who threw Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way in Santa Marta, there in Colombia, a minority took the world's riches for themselves."

All one sentence. Only -one- part of that could conceivably fit the Jews, and the rest doesn't at all. Again, since when did the Jews betray Bolivar? The rest are clearly referencing Western capitalist imperialism, and that fits all three perfectly. Why not ask Chavez what he meant rather than demand an apology? It was by no means clear that he was referring to Jews, in fact it was extremely -unclear- that that was the case. I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty clear the WC screwed up here.

[Behind the Aegis]

64. Comma

The comma makes it appear that two groups were being discussed. However, it could also be that only one group was being discussed; thus the confusion.*

If you read any of my other posts, I said it would have been more prudent and diplomatic for the SWC to ask for clarification, explaining why it was needed. I have not said that the SWC didn't screw up.

*The operative, and confusing, word is "some." He talks about "some" minorities. The implication is there is more than one. Then, he uses two examples. It is possible both examples were for the same group or two different groups, possibly more. But, the last phrase changes from multiple to singular. This could imply that the descriptions were, in fact, about the same minority. Often, but not always (as shown in this sentence), a "comma" can replace the word "and." Usually, that occurs when there is more than two subjects, but that is not always the case. An example would be: "I hate uncooked foods, canned, seal-wrapped, and off-the bone." Only one thing, uncooked food, was being discussed. The other example: "I hate uncooked foods, including sea-dwelling, those which are similar and have the same smell, here in my kitchen, an uncooked food is not welcome." With this last sentence, am I saying only uncooked seafood is not welcome, or am I saying that uncooked seafood and things that smell like it are un-welcomed?

[jpgray]

65. To add to the confusion

Note this: "a minority took the world's riches for themselves..."

"A" being singular, and this being one of the main gripes of the original WC complaint, I think you have to concede that theirs is just a wrongheaded interpretation. Is Chavez referring just to the Jews here? No, common sense indicates Chavez is summing all those examples up as "a" minority.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Check again.

The "a" came after the second description, which is why I said; "But, the last phrase changes from multiple to singular. This could imply that the descriptions were, in fact, about the same minority."

You are correct, as it is that SINGULARITY that was called into question. Had he said: "But it turned out that a minority, descendants of those who crucified Christ, descendants of those who threw Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way in Santa Marta, there in Colombia, a minority took the world's riches for themselves.," then, your assertion would be correct. However, that is not what he said; thus, the confusion. Yet now, we are seeing the SWC being called a tool of the right-wing. In some peoples' minds, there can be no confusion, only conspiracy.

[jpgray]

68. However you score it, they were out of line

The SWC should have askedfor an explanation, instead of demanding an apology. The latter is arrogant and insulting in this case.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. I agree...

The SWC should have "asked for an explanation, instead of demanding an apology." I also said that in another post. However, the chicken is out of the coop. Why should Chavez insult (the first speech was not an insult, as we now know) the SWC, implying it is a tool of the US government? Is that anymore 'crazy' than thinking he is out to insult Jews?

[jpgray]

70. I don't know very much about the SWC

But I'm less inclined to condemn Chavez because he's responding to their initial attack--he didn't come out swinging at the SWC, they brought the fight to him. It's actually a quite similar thing--the attack on Chavez could be construed as part and parcel of the pressure the US has been leveling on him, but it also could be unrelated. I'm wondering what the SWC was doing carefully monitoring Chavez speeches, or who sent them information claiming the speech was anti-Semitic, that sort of thing. Since I doubt the SWC necessarily has the resources to monitor world leader speeches at such a close level, I'd say it's probable that someone sent the information. Now, the likely culprit in the case of the information being sent to the SWC would be the US or Chavez's political opponents, since they have the most interest in undermining Chavez.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

72. Yeah - you could say that

I'm all for fighting antisemitism but come on!