The defamatory accusation of anti-Semitism against Hugo Chávez made by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is still questioned.

In France, the journal Libération, turned into an exceptional element of manipulation, makes changes to improve its campaign, whereas Le Monde, which had joined the group of accusers, carefully retracts itself.

In the January 20, 2006 edition of Libération, the associate editor of the editorial department, Pierre Hadski, showed how shocked he was due to the “violence” of the reactions provoked by the article “Le credo antisémite de Chavez”. “Violence” means that the journal is just incapable of accepting the damage its image has suffered among readers.

Hadski went back to make a better move. He recognized that the statements made by the Venezuelan president were misunderstood; they were anti-imperialist and not anti-Semitic. But another front, which is always bad documented, was immediately opened: Chávez is not an irreproachable man because of his “Iranian friends” and the “large collection of threats to Venezuelan freedoms widely reported by human rights organizations”. In short, Libération recognized it made a mistake but showed it’s willing to go on with its work and it wouldn’t stop until it finds another argument to discredit the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Apart from all this, the chaos in Hadski’s explanations were an example of the incompetence of the journal. The associate editor of the editorial department justified the controversy by making emphasis, once again, on the fact that Mr. Chávez’ statements were open to misinterpretations with regard to the traditional arguments of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe. An explanation was needed, the Venezuelan President gave it. End of the problem.

With this, Hadski and his editorial department evidenced their lack of capacity to understand statements in their own context (the Bolivarian revolution and the Liberation Theology) and their determination to see the world from the European cultural perspective.

The reaffirmation of this ethnocentrism is enough to explain the aversion of Libération towards that country and that man who questions the “western” leadership.