Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXVII: The Maduro Abduction

It's 2026, and I can't think of a better way to ring in the new year than a fresh edition of "Things People Blame the Jews For."

Today's entrant comes from Venezuela, still reeling after America unlawfully abducted President Nicolas Maduro. At one level, it's understandable that people are trying to figure out exactly what happened. On another level, it's really obvious what happened: America unlawfully abducted President Nicolas Maduro.  Nobody is hiding the ball. There aren't a ton of layers to unpack here.

But if you're the new acting Vice President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, is it enough to state the obvious: America unlawfully abducted Nicolas Maduro? No -- there's got to be another angle:

“The governments of the world are simply shocked that it is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela which is the victim and subject of an attack of this nature, which has, without a doubt, a Zionist tint,” said Rodriguez in a televised speech, according to the Mexican public broadcaster.

[...]

There was no evidence to suggest Israel had any role or even knowledge of the American plan to capture Maduro.

Unsurprisingly, it is Venezuela's beleaguered Jewish community that is going to bear the brunt of this, and they're already bracing for the worst:

Jewish community leaders ... reported that all Jewish institutions, including synagogues, had been ordered closed, and Jewish people were instructed to remain at home. Additionally, security around Jewish institutions had been heightened.

(The copy here is ambiguous as to whether the "order" came from the government or from Jewish community leaders as a safety precaution. Either way is bad; the former obviously would be much, much worse).

It's a little difficult to write about this, since it feels like such a side issue against the far greater problem that America invaded a sovereign nation to unlawfully abduct its head of state. Of course, there's little question that Maduro is a schmuck, and Venezuela would be better off without him at the helm. But speaking as the resident of a county currently led by a schmuck and which would be far better off without him at the helm, this doesn't license random foreign nations going in and unlawfully abducting the head of state. And one reason why doing that is bad is that the knock-on effects -- even for populations which may have very good reason to detest said head of state -- are very hard to predict and do not tend to redound well either to occupier or occupied. The United States, of all countries, should know that by now.

A Question About Extradition

Hypothetical question:

Suppose a U.S. citizen kills the citizen of another country on the high seas. Suppose further that the American judicial system refuses to impose legal liability on the citizen (e.g., because they conclude his actions weren't a crime, or they find some immunity doctrine bars the prosecution). The victim's country, by contrast, does want to prosecute.

Can the United States extradite the citizen to the other nation as a way of getting around the functional immunity provided by our own courts? (Does the "high seas" part of the hypothetical matter? What if the foreign national was killed or injured on U.S. soil?).

Purely a hypothetical question, of course.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXX: Democracy Protests in Venezuela

To my knowledge, Venezuela has not yet featured in my "Things People Blame the Jews For" series. This, alas, is not for lack of antisemitism. But if this series was going to be comprehensive, I wouldn't be able to hold down a day job.

Anyway, Venezuela recently had an election, and there are two competing slates of results. The independently-reviewed data suggests that incumbent Nicolas Maduro lost in a landslide. The "official" results, by contrast, have Maduro winning by a 52% to 43% margin. The discrepancy is in large part due to the "official" results conspicuously refusing to release the actual precinct-tallies, with a variety of dog-ate-my-homework style excuses.

Unsurprisingly, Maduro's apparent attempt to steal the election is resulting in widespread protest and unrest. Equally unsurprising is where Maduro lays the blame for the protests: 

At a press conference on Saturday, Maduro blamed what he termed the “extremist right” for the unrest that has swept the country. He accused these groups of being “supported by international Zionism.” He alleged that Jews were manipulating social networks, media outlets and even satellite technology in an attempt to “steal the presidential election” from his socialist government....

Classic.

I do want to compliment Maduro on one thing, however. I've occasionally written on the aesthetics of election-rigging -- if you're just going to make up election results, how do you decide what your margin of victory should be? Too close and you emphasize your tenuous grip on power. Too wide and things just look ridiculous. To my eyes, 52 to 43 is a pretty good choice -- it is a comfortable margin of victory, while still looking to the uninformed eye like the sort of result one might expect to see in a genuinely contested race. My congratulations to the Maduro regime for showing their authoritarian peers how it is done!

What Happens When There is No Contraception

The New York Times has a harrowing story about women in Venezuela who cannot access contraception. A raging economic recession has made condoms, IUDs, and other birth control products prohibitively expensive for many poorer women; at the same time, the cost of raising a family has also spiraled out of control. Many women have resorted to shady back alley abortion attempts (it is still illegal in the country), but unsurprisingly these are exceptionally dangerous.

If you're a conservative, maybe the fact that it's Venezuela and you can nyah-nyah about it since Chavez is of course AOC's role model for Americana will make the story resonate more. But let's be clear -- America is not as far off from this as we'd imagine ourselves to be. The legality of abortion is on the very brink, and cases like Hobby Lobby threaten contraceptive access as well -- again, especially for poorer women. It may be that in a few years, the main difference between America and Venezuela is that we have proportionally fewer women in the sort of abject poverty that is comparable to that found in the South American country -- but for those who do find themselves in that situation, this story could easily become a U.S. story as well.

What's the Difference Between Impeachment and Faithless Electors?

One of the first plot points on the TV series The Americans occurs in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of President Reagan, and Secretary of State Alexander Haig's famous declaration "I am in control here" while the President was in the hospital.

Among Americans, this statement was roundly mocked as Haig being overzealous and ill-informed. But -- while there certainly was anxiety around the assassination attempt regarding who was behind it, whether it was a military move, etc. -- there wasn't really any concern among the American public that Haig was actually launching a coup.

But (in the show, at least) the Russians don't know that. From their vantage point, a top government official had just seized on the chaos of the assassination attempt to declare himself head of state. Without a sort of deep enmeshment in American law, culture, and society, it could be hard to tell -- from afar -- why Haig's statement wouldn't be seen as really worrisome, and what distinguished it from a "real" coup attempt.

I was thinking about this with respect to two ways the ticket that wins the presidential election (as understood in the conventional sense) could nonetheless be blocked or removed from office. One way is, immediately after election day but before he is inaugurated, "faithless electors" deciding en masse to vote for someone else. So even though Trump and Pence won most electoral votes, they could just decide to vote for Nancy Pelosi and some other Vice President. The other way is, after the President Vice President are inaugurated and seated, Congress impeaches and removes them.

To any American observer, though, these are two very different things. Congress impeaching and convicting Donald Trump would be controversial, no doubt, and high profile. But it is still basically recognized as a valid "move"; it isn't an illicit seizure of power. By contrast, the faithless elector route would not be seen that way. It'd be seen as, more or less, a coup.

But why? Both are formally legal. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows for the President and Vice President's removal by impeachment (and, under the law, the next person in the Line of Succession is the Speaker of the House). And under the 12th Amendment Electors have the authority to vote for whomever they like for President (I leave aside the issue of "faithless elector" statutes and their applicability -- we can assume that all the faithless electors come from states which do not prohibit such acts).

And it's not a matter of some established tradition either. Sure, we've never had a case where faithless electors have altered the victor of an election. But we've also never impeached and removed a President (two Presidents -- Johnson and Clinton -- were impeached but not removed; Nixon resigned before he could be impeached).

So suppose Congress does impeach Trump and Pence. Your friend from abroad hears the news and worries -- has Nancy Pelosi just announced a coup? How do you explain that that isn't really an accurate description of what happened, in a way that distinguishes the "faithless elector" case?

(As you might imagine, what's really prompted this line of thinking is the "legal" arguments for Juan Guaido claiming the presidency in Venezuela. Even assuming he's obeying the letter of the law -- is this more like an impeachment, or more like a faithless elector? Of course, I think the actual answer is that the "legitimate" legal structures in Venezuela have decayed so severely that trying to think in terms of legitimated legal pathways is just a misfire completely -- we're talking about a country where the Supreme Court, stacked with Maduro loyalists, just outright dissolved the national assembly, after all)

Informed Uninformed Thoughts on Venezuela

I am not particularly uninformed on Venezuela. But I feel decently informed about what I don't know about Venezuela and, more importantly, what that uninformedness should yield (hint: not sweeping confident endorsement of any particular move or action). So here are my informed, uninformed thoughts:

1) Nicolas Maduro is an authoritarian thug. Nobody should pretend like he's anything else.

2) I don't really know anything about Juan Guaido. I suspect I'd like him more than Maduro because, well, how could I not? But I've been burned before.

3) Coups are bad. They don't become good just because I think I'll like the incoming leader more than the deposed one.

4) I don't know if this is a coup, because I don't know enough (read: anything) about Venezuelan legal structures to know if Guaido's actions track valid legal pathways available to the General Assembly. Put differently, is this "coup" the equivalent of Trump/Pence getting impeached (a perfectly legally-validated pathway for changing America's head of state) and that being labeled a "coup" by Pelosi?

5) Just as a lawyer, I am well aware that pretty much any position can be justified to an uninformed lay person via too-cute formalist arguments that nobody who actually knows anything about the law would swallow. But -- since discerning if that's what's happening here requires that sort of deep enmeshment in the Venezuelan legal tradition that I don't have and can't realistically get -- there's no way for me to know which side, if any, is being cute like this.

6) It's very likely that Maduro was fraudulently elected. That doesn't mean his ouster can't be a coup -- non-democratically elected leaders can be targeted for coups too, and there are good reasons to still oppose such coups -- but it does take the steam out of the "but democracy!" objections a bit.

7) Elections, at their core, are ways of compelling leaders to give up power even when they'd rather stay in office. Which raises the question: by what method, other than a coup, can a non-democratic leader be compelled to give up power even when they'd rather stay in office?

8) The U.S. shouldn't intervene, in the sense of, say, a military incursion. At the same time, at some level the U.S. can't fully stay out -- we have to recognize someone's government after all. And it begs the question to say "Venezuela's government should be decided by the Venezuelan people" -- true, obviously, but the entire locus of the dispute in Venezuela is which government actually has been chosen by the people.

9) I am deeply cynical that this is going to play out in a manner that even remotely approximates "good". I suspect Maduro will remain in power (regardless of whether Guaido was acting "legally" or not), and I suspect we will see a further clampdown on the political rights and liberties in Venezuela in its wake.

To the Edge Roundup

Yesterday, I did the unthinkable. I not only left Google Chrome, I left it for a Microsoft browser (Edge). Chrome had basically stopped running Facebook and Twitter, and so far so good on Edge (though it seems to have trouble with Berkeley's proxy server).

Anyway, the high holidays and related travel kept me off the blog for awhile, so I have quite a few things to clear off the ol' browser.

* * *

Yaacov Lozowick remarks on his Israeli Orthodox shul's experience with a newly-hired female Rabbi. It is fascinating reading.

Venezuela creates the "Hugo Chavez Prize for Peace and Sovereignty", awards it to Vladimir Putin. I think I can honestly say that there's no more deserving recipient.

This is a stellar, stellar piece by Brown undergraduate Benjamin Gladstone on the links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It really deserves more than "roundup" status on this blog, but I find myself without much more to say on it other than "read it".

An Israeli lawmaker for Kulanu is pregnant through IVF ... and the father is her gay best friend (I could write headlines for US Weekly)! And best news of all -- her colleagues and her country seem to support her regardless of whether they fall on the ideological spectrum.

There's a controversy burbling in some corners of the conservative "academic watchdog" (for lack of a better term) community regarding off-color remarks by Yale Philosopher Jason Stanley, and he's issued a response to that controversy that I found exceptionally thoughtful and perceptive.

One of the most important skills to develop as an academic is the ability to read things you disagree with and nonetheless recognize how they can be insightful, nuanced, and perceptive. Since Zionism and "settler-colonialism" is in the news (see my extensive remarks here), I thought I'd give a recommendation to one such paper I just read: "When Does a Settler Become a Native? (With Apologies to Mamdani)" by Tel Aviv University scholar Raef Zriek. It's a very interesting paper, even though I don't find all the analysis compelling (and I've communicated to the author that his argument would greatly benefit from engaging with the Mizrahi case).

Overruled: Nine Months Later

Last April, I wrote a brief blurb on the plight of a Veneuzelan judge who released a prisoner Hugo Chavez wanted to remain incarcerated, and was arrested and thrown in jail 15 minutes later. The man in question had been held in jail for three years without trial, beyond legal limitations, hence the judge's ruling.

Anyway, Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni remains in prison and is facing a 30 year sentence. Prosecutors admit they can find no evidence of any illicit payments to Judge Afiuni, but have accused her of (I kid you not) "spiritual corruption" (presumably, that provision is Article 2, Sec. 128 of Venezuelan national code, right next to the provision that prohibits violating "everything that we [the Venezuelan government] have been doing.").

Proof This Roundup

To quote my friend Marlena: "Let's kill 'em!"

* * *

Venezuelan Jews appeal to Hugo Chavez to stem the tide of anti-Semitic incitement pouring from the state's media.

9/11 families appeal to Pam Geller not to hold an anti-Muslim rally on the day of 9/11. Geller tells the families to get lost -- a bit weird, given that she claims to be speaking on their behalf.

Speaking of 9/11, American Muslims may have to curtail their end of Ramadan celebrations because the timing overlaps with 9/11. I smell another round of "out respect for the feelings of real Americans (and certainly not any prejudice!), Muslims should spend most of their waking hours in caves in service of interfaith dialogue" concern trolling.

UC-Irvine has upheld, though slightly reduced, its suspension of the campus' Muslim Student Union after it was found to have engaged in coordinated disruption of a speaking appearance by the Israeli ambassador. There was, I think, a good discussion of the original decision in the comments here.

The history of America indicates that nothing is better than effectively preventing minority groups from integrating into society.

A history of union violence against poor, defenseless corporations.

Overruled!

A Venezuelan judge recently ruled that a man Hugo Chavez wanted to remain in prison had to be released.

15 minutes later, that judge was arrested.

The revolution lives on.

Edwin Valero Arrested on Suspicion of Murder

WBC lightweight champion Edwin Valero has been arrested in Venezuela on suspicion of murdering his wife.

Venezuelan Federal Police Chief Wilmer Flores said Valero was arrested after police found the body of his wife, Jennifer Carolina Viera, in a hotel in the city of Valencia.

Flores said Valero left the hotel room around dawn on Sunday and told the hotel's security personnel that he had killed Viera.

Flores told state television that police found three stab wounds on Viera's body. He said Valero was transferred a local police precinct, "where we are headed to take samples needed for the investigation of the case" and to question the boxer.

Valero's lawyer, Milda Mora, did not immediately answer telephone calls seeking comment.

The 28-year-old boxer has been in trouble with the law before.

Last month, Valero was brought up on charges of harassing his wife and threatening medical personnel who treated her at a hospital in the western city of Merida.

Police arrested Valero then following an argument with a doctor and nurse at the hospital, where his wife was being treated for a series of injuries, including a punctured lung and broken ribs.

Valero entered a Venezuelan rehabilitation center under court order on March 28 for treatment of drug and alcohol addiction, Mora said at the time. The boxer's attorney said Viera was injured when she fell down a flight of stairs at the couple's home while checking a water tank located on the roof.

Valero is (was) a national hero in Venezuela; it is unclear how a trial against him will progress. And I should add that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Nonetheless, his track record is not good. If he's guilty, he should be locked away for a long, long time.

H/T: BLH. In the comments there, someone is reporting Venezuelan sources stating that Valero has confessed, and will claim self-defense (he's saying his wife attacked him with a knife).

UPDATE: Valero has reportedly hung himself while in prison.

IACHR: Venezuela Complicit in Burgeoning Anti-Semitism

A new report out by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found the state of Venezuela complicit in a surge in anti-Semitism in that country. Unfortunately, the JC article repeats the whole bit on Chavez's "those who crucified Christ" remark, which I'm told by credible sources is not understood to refer to Jews in Latin America the way that it would be understood in Europe. But there are plenty of other examples besides:

Since Hugo Chavez took power, antisemitic expression has grown exponentially: in government media; in the dissemination of the Protocols of Zion; in the accusation that "Semitic banks" are sabotaging the economy; in the fact that the Caracas Jewish school was raided twice by armed forces "searching for Mossad-supplied arms caches"; in the desecration of two synagogues; and in the closing of the Israeli Embassy. The Venezuelan ambassador to Moscow even alleged that Jewish citizens implicated in a 2002 anti-Chavez coup were "Mossad agents".

The origins of Mr Chavez's attitude can be traced to the influence wielded over him by his Argentine, pro-Nazi, Holocaust-denying school companion, the late Norberto Ceresole, who - in his 1998 book on Mr Chavez's election victory - warned of the Venezuelan "Jewish mafia".
[...]
Mr Chavez is undoubtedly obsessed with a world Jewish conspiracy represented by the less than 12,000 Jews remaining in Venezuela. They are becoming the scapegoat for his dysfunctional administration and the economic crisis that is engulfing a country blessed with oil, coffee and sugar.

One third of the Jewish community has fled, fearing Soviet-style state antisemitism. Indeed, such a policy has all the appearances of having already begun.

A pro-Chavez television show named Venezuelan Jewish leaders as anti-Venezuelan conspirators, and called on other Jews "not involved in the conspiracy" to publicly denounce their coreligionists. A Chavista newspaper editorial questioned whether "we will have to expel them from our country… as other nations have done."

I've previously blogged on emergent anti-Semitism in Venezuela here, here, and here. The world is beginning to take notice.

Chavez, Morales, and Robertson Duke It Out

For supremacy in the idiotic comments about Haiti contest. We've already discussed Robertson's contribution. Here's Morales:

President Evo Morales said Wednesday that Bolivia would seek U.N. condemnation of what he called the U.S. military occupation of earthquake-stricken Haiti. "The United States cannot use a natural disaster to militarily occupy Haiti," he told reporters at the presidential palace.

"Haiti doesn't need more blood," Morales added, implying that the militarized U.S. humanitarian mission could lead to bloodshed. His criticism echoed that of fellow leftist, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said Sunday that "it appears the gringos are militarily occupying Haiti."

When asked Wednesday about the possibility of the U.N. General Assembly condemning the U.S., assembly spokesman Jean Viktor Nkolo pointed to previous U.N. statements expressing gratitude for U.S. help in Haiti.

The United Nations will soon sign an agreement with the U.S. stipulating the U.N. as the lead organization for security in Haiti, Edmond Mulet, acting U.N. special envoy to Haiti, said Tuesday.

And here's Chavez:

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez Wednesday accused the United States of causing the destruction in Haiti by testing a 'tectonic weapon' to induce the catastrophic earthquake that hit the country last week.

President Chavez said the US was "playing God" by testing devices capable of creating eco-type catastrophes, the Spanish newspaper ABC quoted him as saying.

One thing that is missing from this "analysis" is why America has any particular interest in occupying Haiti. At least with Iraq, we have a facially plausible, though conspiratorial, interest in Iraq's oil (left unclear is why we couldn't just buy it from the Hussein regime, as he would have been quite glad to sell it to us). Haiti carries with it no such natural wealth; an occupation would be a massive expenditure of American resources (at a time when they are locked up in various other locations) for no apparent gain. I'm uncomfortable enough with bare materialist explanations for behavior (particularly when they are cast as a dualism: one side is materialist, the other side, of course, morally pure), but what we are supposed to imagine is that American's have some innate, pathological desire to control the world -- something in our national biology apparently turns us into sociopaths. We might describe such a view as racist.

UPDATE: The Chavez quote, at least, appears to be a fabrication that managed to get some legs in the global media. Interestingly, the statement was repeated both by anti-Chavez outlets like Fox News and pro-Chavez entities like Iran's Press TV, apparently because, as Harry's Place put it, it panders to the prejudices of both those who think Chavez is crazy, as well as those who think that America is.

Peace Through Strength!

Hugo Chavez raises tensions with neighboring Colombia, tells troops to prepare for war:

"The best way to avoid war is preparing for it," Chavez told military officers during his weekly television and radio program. Venezuela's socialist leader has also cited a recent deal between Bogota and Washington giving U.S. troops greater access to military bases as a threat to regional stability.

I don't have any intrinsic problem with Venezuela demonstrating defensive military readiness. It's in an unstable region; it needs to self-help. But we shouldn't be that surprised that a former coup-leading army paratrooper is actually every bit as belligerent, bombastic, and militaristic as the "empire" (the United States) he is perpetually accusing of trying to spark global warfare.

The Chavez Movement and the Jews

This article by Wake Forest Political Science Professor Luis Roniger, "Venezuelan Jews in the Context of the Multiplicty of Latin American Jewish Experiences" (via Bob), is good. It's very good in fact. It is a careful exploration of how the Chavez revolution has impacted the life prospects of the local Jewish community. It explores issues of anti-Semitism without either knee-jerks or fawning, apologetic credulity. It locates the issues Jews are facing both in the ideology of the revolution (which both has explicitly anti-Semitic sources, such as Norberto Ceresole, as well as more "incidental" ones, such as a general intolerance for independent civil society associations which automatically makes distinctive minorities like Jews suspect), as well as part of more structural policies and interests of the state (e.g., its growing ties to Iran and its efforts to develop a global counterweight to the United States).

What I like about it is that it is, again, careful. It doesn't go for too much, but it doesn't falsely limit the field of inquiry either (e.g., by ignoring "private" anti-Semitic incitements by actors clearly operating within Chavez's ideology, or by blithely asserting that anti-Zionist agitation is definitionally not anti-Semitism). It doesn't engage in hyperbolic rhetoric. It even puts the infamous "crucified Christ" remarks in their proper context. It doesn't indicate that Venezuelan Jews are facing a new Holocaust, but nor does it paint an overly rosy picture of their situation. It is, in other words, the furthest thing from the fawning whitewash by Chavez apologizers that I was recently pointed to.

Crabs in a Bucket

From Happy Bodies:

I feel betrayed by these activists who work on issues I care about, because they don’t seem to care about me. Activism must come from community. How can I be part of a community of activists that fights for aids awareness, when I don’t feel like my body is respected? I don’t want to be part of a green movement that thinks the environment is greater than gender equality. I won’t join a movement for same-sex marriage, if they can’t understand that sexual objectification contributes to a culture of sexual violence, and that all these issues are intertwined.

Boy, do I relate to that. I was just instructed to ignore a whitewash of anti-Semitism in Venezeula (except for the 2009 synagogue attack, virtually none of these events are even mentioned. But don't worry! Chavez says he opposes anti-Semitism! So it's alright then!) because the article, even though the person sending it to me admitted it was distorted, provided an important "counterbalance" to the "corporate media's" hostility to Hugo Chavez. This didn't sting quite as much as it might have, because I'm actually only interested in one of those campaigns (anti-Semitism concerns me; hostility to Latin American autocrats, less so), but I was still rather stunned that somebody would think it's legitimate to erase anti-Semitic hostility because it was critical to some putatively superior struggle.

If someone genuinely feels that protecting Hugo Chavez (or opposing capitalism, or indicting the corporate media, or attacking imperialism, or really, anything) is so important that it's okay to erase and marginalize Jews and Jewish experiences in Venezuela, fine, tell me that. But don't expect me to view you as an ally. Don't even expect me to view you as particularly progressive. You're not.

Blow Me Away

You know, the more I read about Hugo Chavez, the more I'm convinced that he doesn't so much dislike "imperialism" as he is jealous of it. His forays into naked authoritarianism are well documented, but the implied threat to invade nearby countries (in this case, Honduras) is a different animal.

To be sure, I oppose the coup in Honduras -- even though the President appeared to be breaking the law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) in forcing through a referendum on whether to amend the constitution to allow him to run for subsequent terms. Most other governments rightly have come out against it, and Chavez -- who was nearly the victim of a coup himself in 2002 -- certainly is quite proper to join them (of course, the fact that he attempted to launch a coup to come to power back in 1992 shows he resides in quite the glass house). Coups aren't the way modern democracies do business. But I was under the impression we had all learned a valuable lesson about getting too trigger happy in trying to convert or revert regimes to the styles and behaviors we preferred.

Damn It Feels Good

Is it just me, or is Hugo Chavez reveling in acting the thug?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday he had ordered the nationalization of at least some of the operations of the U.S.-based food giant Cargill and threatened to do the same with the Caracas-based food maker Polar.
Venezuela President Hugo Chavez accused Cargill of growing specialized rice to evade price controls.

"Begin the expropriation process with Cargill," he said in a nationally televised speech in which he accused the company of growing specialized forms of rice in an attempt to evade price controls.

The leftist president called the company's practices "a flagrant violation of everything that we have been doing."

"Everything that we have been doing", of course, is taken from the text of Article 2, Sec. 127 of the Venezuelan national code, which states that anyone who violates what the government does is subject to asset forfeiture (with additional penalties if the violation is "flagrant").

Meanwhile, regarding another potential nationalization target (Polar), Chavez had this to say:

About Polar, which is led by Lorenzo Mendoza, Chavez said, "We can expropriate all the plants of Polar. Mr. Mendoza, be alert. Because then you will go out and order your pricey lawyers and I don't know what to say that this is a violation of the constitution. Well, fine. If you want to fight with the government, brother, there you go. It's not with the government, it's with the law!"

And it's the law because "Hulk" Chavez say so. Brother.

The Tried and True

Julie points to a Washington Post editorial indicating that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is trying out a time-tested way to buff up his popular support: rustling up hatred against the Jews.

Then there is the assault on Venezuela's Jewish community -- which seems to have replaced George W. Bush as Mr. Chávez's favorite foil. After Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip last month, the caudillo expelled Israel's ambassador and described Israel's actions in Gaza as "genocide." Then Mr. Chávez turned on Venezuela's Jews. "Let's hope that the Venezuelan Jewish community will declare itself against this barbarity," Mr. Chávez bellowed on a government-controlled television channel. "Don't Jews repudiate the Holocaust? And this is precisely what we're witnessing."

Government media quickly took up the chorus. One television host close to Mr. Chávez blamed opposition demonstrations on two students he said had Jewish last names. On a pro-government Web site, another commentator demanded that citizens "publicly challenge every Jew that you find in the street, shopping center or park" and called for a boycott of Jewish-owned businesses, seizures of Jewish-owned property and a demonstration at Caracas's largest synagogue. On Jan. 30 the synagogue was duly attacked by a group of thugs, who spray-painted "Jews get out" on the walls and confiscated a registry of members. Mr. Chávez denied responsibility; days later, the attorney general's office said that 11 people detained in connection with the attack included five police officers and a police intelligence operative.

See also my post on the attack on a Venezuelan synagogue. Chavez eventually condemned the attacks, while cryptically blaming the opposition and asking "who benefits from these violent incidents. It is not the government, nor the people, nor the revolution." Well, I'll grant the people, and perhaps the revolution, but the government seems to be making out like a bandit.

What makes this all the more terrifying is that Venezuela, historically, has not had a significant problem with anti-Semitism. It's gone from 0 - 60 in the space of just a few years, and now up to a fifth of the state's Jewish population has fled the country. Venezuela is yet another example of how, even where it has been historically dormant, with the right leadership anti-Semitism can turn on like a switch. And the modern "hook" it uses as its justificatory schema is opposition to Israel.

Chavez Condemns and Deflects

Hugo Chavez has come out and condemned the violent assault on a Caracas synagogue. However, he refused to contemplate any linkage between his own extreme rhetoric on Israel and the violence, instead choosing to point fingers at opposition parties:

"We condemn the actions on the synagogue of Caracas," Chavez said in a televised speech on Sunday. "It must be asked ... who benefits from these violent incidents. It is not the government, nor the people, nor the revolution."

In an often cryptic response, he suggested opposition leaders plotted the attack to reduce his chances in a February 15 referendum on a constitutional amendment that would let him stay in office after his term ends in 2013.

Nobody "benefits" from these violent actions. But somebody does inspire them. And that someone is Hugo Chavez.

UPDATE: Modern Mitzvot has more.