When ‘Zionist’ Becomes a Political Bogeyman |
In the aftermath of the weekend’s events in Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, Vice President and interim leader after Nicolás Maduro’s capture by U.S. forces, went on Venezuelan television and described U.S. action as something that ‘undoubtedly has Zionist overtones’ (‘tinte sionista’), calling it ‘shameful’.
International media reported loud explosions in Caracas as the U.S. operation unfolded, with Venezuelans waking to smoke, checkpoints, and uncertainty after a surprise U.S. strike and raid that captured Maduro.
The tinte sionista line is nonsense as an explanation. The U.S. government does not need Israel to conduct U.S. policy in Latin America. ‘Zionist’ is not a method of statecraft. It is not an institution. It does not explain a single concrete step in an operation.
Trump’s team, meanwhile, has been publicly signalling a different story: that Rodríguez is someone Washington can work with, even presenting her as ‘willing’ to go along with U.S. plans. Reuters summarised Trump’s framing and her public defiance in the same news cycle.
You do not need to assume secret negotiations to make sense of the rhetoric. In a regime that lives on anti-imperial performance, leaders often keep the posture even when events force improvisation. Whatever is happening behind closed doors, she still has to sound like she is fighting the same enemy her base has been trained to hate. In that setting, ‘Zionist’ language can function as much as internal signalling as it does as an external accusation.
When a government adds ‘Zionist’ to a story that is already full of ‘imperialism’, ‘mercenaries’, ‘CIA plots’, and ‘foreign sabotage’, evidence stops being the currency. Suspicion becomes the point. A messy, local political crisis becomes a cosmic fight against an almost metaphysical enemy. Evidence is never shown or needed, and the bait-and-switch works because ‘Zionism’ is being used in a way that can slide toward classic antisemitic........