A Response to Lomnitz and Sánchez
Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sánchez claim that Bolivarian Venezuela is “sporadically but consistently” showing symptoms of “state-directed anti-Semitism” as part of a political project of rendering the “internal opposition as abject and anti-national, deprived of any possible legitimacy.” Unfortunately, they are unable to defend this thesis, for they build their case on shaky empirical and conceptual foundations. First, their understanding of anti-Semitism is flawed: the word means prejudice against Jews. Second, they conflate anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli foreign policy. The two differ. Third, they mischaracterize the rhetoric of Chávez. A more patient examination suggests its innocuousness.
1. Exhibit A for Chavismo’s anti-Semitism is a speech by Chávez at a center run by Liberation Theologians, where he said:
The world has an offer for everybody but it turned out that a few minorities—the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolívar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia—they took possession of the riches of the world . . . they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of a few; less than 10 percent of the world population owns more than half of the riches of the world.
Liberation theologians see the rich—not the Jews—as the murderers of Christ. Meanwhile, Latin American Jews allied with Simón Bolívar, giving him safe harbor in Curacao as he fled persecuting armies. (It would take some tragic innumeracy to think that “less than 10 percent” of the world’s people could be a reference to Jews. We’re a bit less than that.)
Bearing that in mind, it is misleading to say that “Chávez mentions Jews, Christ killers, the abject Venezuelan oligarchy, and the riches of the world in the same breath,” and that “expressions have histories, and denotation cannot shake off ideological connotation.” Chávez did not denote Jews but the rich. What Sánchez and Lomnitz mean is connotation to Western anti-Semites, to whose evils Westerners are understandably sensitized. One can demonize anyone by holding them responsible for how scoundrels will see their statements. It is wrong to hold Chávez responsible for the inevitable distortions of bigots.
2. According to Lomnitz and Sánchez, “Hugo Chávez’s allusions to and statements about Israel are excessive and disproportionate to the issues that are at stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” and therefore anti-Semitic. But this point is doubly flawed.
First, Venezuela has a substantial Arab émigré population, understandably furious at the occupation. This in part determines Chávez’s response to Israeli actions, as does Israel’s well-documented support for reactionary state-terror in Latin America. Furthermore, Venezuela’s allotment of exterminationist anti-Semites are not precisely at the bosom of Chavismo. Former members of neo-Nazi groups such as MSN and Tradition, Family, and Property march at opposition rallies, nostalgic for the jackboot and the Swastika. Lomnitz and Sánchez mis-locate the project of hate.
Second, and more fundamentally, Palestinians have suffered decades of displacement, dispossession, occupation, and murder. There are hardly words to describe the Cast Lead operation of last winter. Three years ago the IDF leveled Lebanon, not the first such incursion. Who are Lomnitz and Sánchez to decide on the “proportionate” response to human suffering? It is improper to make disproportion the baseline for bigotry. No one could meet such a standard.
3. Lomnitz and Sánchez also find Chávez’s criticism of Israel “excessive because [chavismo] identified Islam as Venezuela’s national patrimony . . . the Star of David has been equated to the swastika.” That equation is not anti-Semitic—it’s incorrect. Identifying Islam as Venezuela’s “national patrimony” only suggests anti-Semitism if Islam itself is anti-Semitic. Could they mean to libel so strangely the basis of a billion people’s spirituality? Or to rebuke Chávez for his heroic stand with embattled Muslim peoples as they struggle against foreign armies?
Too much that is written about Venezuela is clichéd: breathless applause or baseless assault. In their effort to veer away from the former, Lomnitz and Sánchez veer far too close to the latter. Discourse in Venezuela merits attention, but not of this sort. And, too, careless use of the word “anti-Semitism” is also troubling. If the pogrom returns, and cries of anti-Semitism fall upon unhearing ears, assigning blame for cheapening the word won’t matter. What will matter are the consequences of that cheapening. Something worth bearing in mind.
Comments
Tweet
About the Author
Max Ajl, a writer and graduate student from Brooklyn, has written for Tikkun, the Guardian, and the New Statesman, among other publications. He blogs at maxajl.com, where a full version of this letter can be found.
Related Articles
Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sánchez,
United by Hate,
A Necessary Critique
Keep in touch with Boston Review
The Boston Review would better be served by not posting responses of a well known anti-american and anti-Israel anarchist, for one can't truly expect anywhere near an objective response by a person with a severe case of transferable nationalism.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
How "substantial"? 0.4%! That is extremely low. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90271.htm)
Composed predominantly of Lebanese and Syrians, whose governments inflict serious restrictions on the Palestinians in their countries, and whose societies have high-degrees of anti-Palestinian racism, it is hard to believe Max´s argument that Chavez is attacking Israel as some form of solidarity with Arabs.
Chavez is playing power politics, and he is not the first to use anti-Semitism for these ends.
The use of antisemitism in Venezuela is similar to that in Poland in 67/68, in which an "antizionist campaign" took place, which combined an internal nationalism (against dissidents and student movements, paiting them as "foreign" and "zionist provocateurs") with a foreign policy in the Middle East to construct "the enemy."
The internal process resulted in the expulsion of Polish Jews from their positions in the Party, their occupations, their places at the University and in the end, 35,000 of them were pushed out of the country. The foreign policy involved the realignment of the Soviet Bloc around the Arab states.
This is similar to what is occurring in Venezuela, with Chavez´s union with Iran. Lomnitz and Sánchez produced a great analysis of these dynamics. Keep up the great work Boston Review!