|
The head of the largest Jewish group in Venezuela wrote to the Simon Weisenthal Center telling them that they had mistranslated and misunderstood a remark by Chavez about "those who killed Jesus" (Chavez very clearly was talking about the rich and powerful not about Jews), and asked them to stop. They also said that Chavez is NOT anti-Semitic and that his government has been responsive and fast in addressing threats or acts against Jews. I've read the SW Center press release and the Venezuelan Jewish group's letter asking them to correct this falsehood about Chavez, as well as many articles on this subject. I think it is appalling that the corporate press did not do follow-up on this
Somewhat later, there was an attack/robbery of the main synagogue in Caracas and the government moved swiftly to solve it, caught and prosecuted the perps. (The perps were a women police officer and associated thieves, in cahoots with the synagogue's security guard, who stole the synagogue's money and admitted scrawling anti-Jewish slogans on the walls to misdirect the police). Once again, Venezuela's Jewish groups backed up the Chavez government and said that it was doing everything possible to prevent such attacks. In this case, it wasn't an anti-Jewish action; it was a mere robbery under cover of an anti-Jewish action.
I have followed news about Venezuela very closely and have not heard a single thing about an exodus of Jews from Venezuela. Where did you get this from? It is so incendiary that I really must have a source and citation or I will just presume that it's typical rightwing garbage--like questioning Obama's citizenship.
One other thing: The Chavez administration supports equal rights for women, gays, Afro-Venezuelans, the Indigenous and all minorities. A couple of years ago they risked losing (and did lose) a national vote on a package of important constitutional amendments very likely because they included a provision for equal rights for women and gays--a controversial proposal in a country with a large Catholic population and very rightwing bishops and cardinals (who told people that the Chavez government was going to take children from their mothers). Would a government that risked so much for women's/gay rights likely be anti-semitic? This is not proof that they are not anti-semitic, but it adds to the above--information from Venezuelan Jews themselves strongly contradicting this charge against Chavez, whose government has done so much for excluded groups. It is NOT the M.O. of the Chavez government to demonize vulnerable groups, or to employ racism or sexism in any way. They are social liberals.
Also, though the Chavez government has been outspoken on Israeli government actions against Palestinians, this does not make them anti-Semitic. Many Jews within Israel and around the world oppose Israel's Palestinian policy--as do other world leaders and countries. Opposing an Israeli policy and advocating for Palestinian human/civil rights is not necessarily an anti-Israel view, let alone an anti-Jewish one. In fact, there are many people--including yours truly--who believe that justice for the Palestinians is essential to Israel's safety and well-being.
In the case of the Chavez government, it evident to me that Chavez's views are very like my own, and like those of Jewish peace groups. Opposing Israel's rightwing government/militarism is NOT the same as being anti-Israel and indeed is based on a desire for justice and peace for all, including Israelis. Lula da Silva called Chavez "the great peacemaker" in another situation (the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador in 2008). I think that praise is well-deserved, and that Chavez believes--as Lula does--that world peace is essential to Latin America's development, prosperity and well-being. They pursued a common policy of trying to move U.S./"western" policy away from aggression against Iran and toward diplomacy. I agree with that as well. I think that U.S./"western" war on Iran would be catastrophic for Israel (and could be catastrophic for us all, given the threat of Pakistan, India, Russia and China coming into it).
It's possible--or rather likely--in my view, that this nonsense about Chavez being anti-semitic is a rightwing/war profiteer disinformation effort. It is without foundation. It has been contradicted by all the facts that I could find. Yet it persists as a rumor. That is how disinformation campaigns work. It is also ominous, as to U.S./"western" intentions toward Venezuela. It adds to volumes of demonization items against Chavez in the corporate press and from the U.S. State Department.
-----------------------------
Term limits/"dictator"
"The removal (or attempted removal) or term limitations, I'm not cool with at all. I'm not a fan at all of the concept of a dictator."
-----------
Removing term limits on the Venezuelan president was proposed in a package of 69 amendments to the constitution put to a vote of the people in 2007. The Chavista proposal lost very narrowly (by about 1%), likely for two reasons: the amendment for equal rights for women and gays, and the package was too complex (involving economic measures as well) causing voter confusion.
The Chavistas then put removing term limits--for the president and state governors--on the ballot, as a stand-alone issue, and it won, hands down.
FDR ran for and won four terms in office. Why shouldn't Chavez? He is very similar to FDR in that he has implemented a "New Deal" for Venezuelans, and, if they want it to continue, why shouldn't they be able to make that choice?
Our founders opposed a term limit on the president as undemocratic. They felt that the peoples' electors would reflect the will of the majority in the country and that the majority should have the leader they want, regardless of how often he was elected. They were meanwhile creating the "balance of power" among the equal branches of government--the executive, congress and the courts--to prevent the president from gaining too much power. But they specifically and deliberately did NOT include a term limit on the president.
After FDR ran for and won four terms in office--and saved the country from the Great Depression (not to mention Hitler)--the Republicans, in the mid-1950s--rammed an amendment through congress (not a vote of the people, as in Venezuela) placing a two-term limit on the president, in order to ensure that no "New Deal" could ever happen here again, and to begin to dismantle the one that we had (which they have very nearly accomplished).
A "New Deal" means fairness for the "little guy"--ordinary citizens, the majority--labor rights and protections, strict regulation of Wall Street and banksters to prevent crashes and ponzi schemes, and people being able to work, put food on the table, have homes and farms, educate themselves in public libraries and send their children to adequately funded public schools and colleges. It means fighting "organized money" (as FDR put it) on behalf of the poor majority, in order to create a decent and stable society.
Creating a decent and stable society takes TIME as well as public will and strong leadership. "Organized money" always has the advantage--in money, power and entrenchment. What "organized money" has in bully power, the people can effectively counter with their majority vote--by keeping those who truly represent them in office and expelling them from office if they don't adequately fight for the "little guy" or become corrupt.
FDR's "packing of the Supreme court" (a rightwing phrase) perfectly illustrates WHY the people need to keep a strong peoples' advocate like FDR in power for lengths of time. The Supreme Court in the FDR era had been appointed by the prior "robber baron" regimes who had crashed the stock market and brought on the Great Depression, with millions of people out of work, or cast off their farms, homeless and starving. FDR began instituting measures, which were passed by Congress, to alleviate this suffering, to put people back to work, to save their farms, to stimulate the economy and to control the banksters. The rabid rightwingers and predatory capitalists on the Supreme Court began declaring these "New Deal" programs "unconstitutional."
Thus, we have an example of how the entrenched power of "organized money" can continue to prevent reform, even though reform is the will of the people--and even in dire circumstances like the Great Depression. The people therefore need a strong, sustained effort by their elected leaders to un-entrench such power--which pervades many institutions, not just the Supreme Court. The rich have their clubs and their cabals. The poor have time, if they can manage to get a good leader elected.
FDR tried to jumpstart reform of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution does not specify the number of justices. Congress can add justices if they vote to do so. FDR proposed a measure to Congress to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court, to add some younger justices to balance out the rightwingers who were preventing reform and aid to the ravaged poor majority. The reaction of the rightwing press and "organized money" was so wild ("Dictator! Dictator!" they cried, for FDR proposing a VOTE on something), that FDR withdrew the proposal, but his cagey pressure on the court caused one justice to change his mind about "New Deal" programs. Thus, Social Security was saved!
This is how a strong leftist (majorityist) leader works to serve the public and the interests of the country against "organized money." Bold, firm, intelligent, cagey leadership. And if what he is doing is legal and if what he is doing is right and necessary in the opinion of the people, and he needs time to finish difficult reforms, why shouldn't the people be able to re-elect him?
FDR did NOTHING illegal. And that is another parallel to Chavez. FDR was merely manipulating the government/political system as well as he could, within its limits, to benefit the people. Similarly, Chavez has done NOTHING illegal. His government has, in fact, scrupulously adhered to powers authorized by the constitution and the legislature. Has he been bold? Yes. Has he been a bit high-handed at times (so like FDR)? Yes. Is he doing the will of the people? Clearly.
In 2006, the Chilean Latinobarometro poll reported that Venezuelans rated their democracy highest in Latin America, except for Uruguay, and first in Latin American on public participation criteria. Recently (last week), a Gallup poll reported that Venezuelans had rated their country 5th in the world on Venezuelan citizens' feeling of "well-being." (Venezuela beat out the U.S. which came in 12th.) These, and Chavez's many electoral victories--in an election system that is far, FAR more transparent than our own--indicate that what we have, in Chavez, is an FDR--not the "dictator" bogeyman that has been foisted upon us by the corporate press and other propagandists for the rich, but in truth a good and decent leader who is leading a reform movement not just in Venezuela but throughout Latin America, where numerous other leftist leaders have been elected and are in coalition with Chavez--including the leaders of powerful Brazil--to reform the region on social justice and other issues.
The rightwing/corporate forces always try to demonize strong leftist/populist leaders as "dictators" because "organized money" does not like to be told that they can't have ALL the money. They have to pay their fair share of taxes. They have to pay fair wages. They have to obey laws and regulations. They can't cheat and fleece the poor. They can't monopolize markets. They can't ravage the environment for profit. They can't bully the government because the government is not theirs--it is of, by and for all of the people.
In the case of Latin America, we are not just talking about internal rightwing/"organized money" forces, but transglobal corporations and the U.S. dominated World Bank/IMF, which have been bullying and ravaging Latin America without mercy for several decades. Latin America had their Great Depression a decade before we did--and that is why they have elected "FDR"'s all over the region, to create a "New Deal" for themselves.
I am going to conclude my treatise on "Chavez the dictator" with a quote from Lula da Silva, president of Brazil. He said, of Chavez: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez but not on democracy!" This is a neighbor leader who knows Chavez well. They met monthly to discuss common goals and projects. But really, the person we ought to consult is the poor barrio mother in Caracas who always longed to read books and be educated but who couldn't afford books, and had to drop out of school to work to feed her children, one of whom, a teenager, was in rebellion and had joined a gang. A Chavez government social program contacted her, gave her a subsidy so she could return to school (where she is training to be a nurse), paid for her books and transportation, and furthermore convinced her teenage son to return to school and leave his gang. He has now become a social worker himself, working to get gang members back in school and into productive lives.
This mother and thousands like her have no voice in the corporate press, and almost no voice on the internet. I read her story at www.venezuelanalysis.com. Thank God for the alternative information at that site!
Tell me this is a "dictatorial" government. "Dictating" to whom?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
