It's Springtime, which means that Princeton University Press is having its annual 50% off Spring Sale. From May 4th through June 9th, you can get 50% off nearly every single print, ebook and audio book from Princeton University Press. Just go to press.prinston.edu to get 50% off incredible books like Disneyland and the Rise of Automation and Beyond Belief, how evidence shows what really works. There are so many fantastic books, you can get an incredible deal on.
Go to press.prinston.edu and use the code Spring50. That's spring50 at press.prinston.edu. This sale only lasts for a month, so go and get some books. Welcome to the New Books Network.
Hello, welcome to the New Books In Jewish Studies podcast. I am your host, Ari Barbe Latt, today. It is my blessing and my honor to be in dialogue with Dr. Gustavo Guzman, associate researcher at the Latin America Institute at the Free University of Berlin.
We will be discussing his newly published book, Attitudes of the Chilean Rights Toward Jews, from Acceptable Undesirables to Respected Businessmen, published in Leiden, Netherlands by Brill, 2022. Gustavo, I'm thrilled to be with you today. Thank you, it's my pleasure. To begin, please tell us about yourself.
Where did you grow up? What formative events in your life inspired the scholar you would become as an adult? I was born in 1981 in Chile, in fact, I was born in Chile, which means that I was born in Pinachets, Chile. This, of course, although I didn't know that was an important issue, when I was a little kid, it wasn't something important.
I studied the Instituto National Institute, which is the most important, the public, high school for boys in Chile. I always enjoyed very much reading books. I thought up to 16 or 17 years that I was going to study the terrace or something like that. When I was around 17, 1998, the general opinion of Chile was in London.
It was truly a milestone of the watershed for many young boys and girls of my generation. She included and made me change my decision. I studied history in the University of Chile, where I came to know one remarkable scholar, Professor Jaime Moreno, and through his work, through him, I came very close to the Center for Jewish Studies in the University of Chile, and so this is more or less how I came to work on the topic of Jewish history in Chile, as well as the study of anti-Semitic in Chile. What inspired you to prepare this book?
What message did you hope to convey to your readers through the book? When I studied history in the early 2000s, Chile, Chile, also the majority of my classmates were highly interested in Chilean history. I felt that I was in a tiny minority. We were of those students who were more interested in, we call it very funny, you know, universal history, which actually was a history of Europe and to a lesser degree of the United States.
I traveled to Argentina because our friends in Argentina are constantly suffering this economic crisis, so it was cheaper for my generation to have a vacation in Buenos Aires, Inc. So I came to be in contact with these books about the history of the far right, the history of anti-Semitism, the history of Jewish immigration, the history of the also adult immigration, etc. I noticed that there was a big gap in history and history of historiography in this regard. Besides one or two minor papers on the topic, there was essentially nothing, no serious research on the topic.
So when I was studying my MA, I was like, you know, Chile, you know, Chile, for education, for education, more or less like in the US, it's not like in Argentina or Europe or Israel. So I was lucky. I got this scholarship, they paid for my tuition, and I got that scholarship because I proposed, I emphasized that I was going to write about something as important as a history of anti-Semitism in Chile. So this was my first motivation.
I wanted to be when I was in my twenties to be the author of the first book, the first series of work on the history of anti-Semitism in Chile because it was a fundamental topic in the rest of the Western world, but somehow in Chile, nobody had worked on it seriously. So fast forward, I came to meet Professor Lionel Bryan in 2009 in Tel Aviv in a conference organized by Latin American Jewish Studies Association, Laxa. And years after, I met with him in another Laxa conference, so I proposed him to do a thesis, I mean, a dissertation about right wing anti-Semitism in Chile. And I was sure that he was going to say yes, but he said no, because he was not original at all my proposal, which was something I didn't consider at that point.
So we were talking with Professor Ryan in Miami, this conference in Laxa, and after like around one hour we came to agree on a doctoral dissertation proposal or the main lines of the project was rather than focusing on writing anti-Semitism that is on the attitude of hostility toward use, I was going to study a set of attitudes from hostility to indifference to friendliness, et cetera, and I was going to do it from three or two different moments of the 20th century, which the Jewish, the Jewish question was discussed, so to speak. And so I was going to be able to grasp the changes and continuity to the difference. So that's my main motivation, the message that I want to convey to my readers, it's the first and foremost that the history of anti-Semitism and the history of the Jews in Latin America is not less important that the history of anti-Semitism and the Jews in the rest of the world, first of all. Second, that the case of Latin America, the case of Latin America, specifically of Chile, where there is no important or significant tradition of anti-Jewish violence and anti-Semitic discrimination and the like, it's very important to eliminate other Jewish experiences in Latin America, of course, but also in the rest of the Western world.
And maybe in the third place I would say that, and this is so important in this moment, that the Jewish experience in Latin America, in this case in Chile, is not exceptional, has many, many similarities with experiences of other, say, unwanted or undefiable immigrants, such as Arabs and Chinese. Can you summarize your book for us? What story and stories does this book tell? Sure.
My book is divided into two parts. Part one is about Jewish immigration in the 30s to Chile. I studied in detail going through the archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, in Chile. I consider many, many sources in archives in Israel, in Chile, and in the US.
And what I show in the first part is that there were multiple attitudes toward Jews within the Chilean right wing, from hostility to indifference and to friendliness. I show many stories, of course, I try to depict the context first, but I tell many stories, which show that there is not such a thing as the right wing. There were multiple actors, multiple voices, and I could trace some tendencies. And compared with other cases or other countries in the Americas, the Chilean authorities, the Chilean right wingers of the time were not anticipated.
In the second part of the book, I go from 1958 to 1978. That is, I see all these changes of the Cold War years in Chile in this 20-year period, 20-year period. And then I show that the tendencies that I had traced in the 30s are confirmed in the later years. For instance, Jewish officials got rich, very high-ranking positions.
I would say top positions in the Chilean armed forces, namely in the Chilean army and in the Chilean air force. This did not happen in Argentina or other South American countries. This is remarkable. Similarly, Jews have managed to reach, to want to win a seat in the Chilean Congress since the 30s.
And they did so representing multiple political parties. They were extraordinarily willing to rate it into Chile society. So much so that in the Cold War drama, so to speak, that my country experienced, went through between the election, the victory of President Allende in September 1970, to the coup d'etat of September 11, 1973. And afterwards, of course, Jews were part of each one of these groups in conflict.
So in the epilogue of my book, I go to the eve of the playlist of the referendum of 1988, which Pinochet was defeated, and after which he left the office. These are our stories, bottom line, I think. These are stories that invite us to rethink the Jewish experience in Latin America. How would you characterize Jewish immigration to Chile in the first half of the 20th century?
What do you mean by the term acceptable undesirables? For the Jewish migrants, just as it was for the Italian immigrants, Spanish, Germans, Poles, etc. There were many places, better options to any great starting with the US, starting with the Canada in Latin America. If you could manage to get our opinion, this is for sure we go to our opinion.
That's the first thing, I want to say that few people, few immigrants came to Chile's story too. On the other hand, these new commerce, these immigrants were divided in the minds of Chilean rulers and Chilean officials into big categories. The desirable and the undesirable. In the first group, of course, there were Germans, Scandinavians, or even Russians, white people, nothing surprising.
In the second category, the undesirable, the historiography, and also that some primary sources, it speaks essentially of Chinese, black people, what they call the documents called black negatives, and those ad-abs and those. But I found out that ad-abs, especially Jews, are rather acceptable undesirables, which means that although hostile discourses to a lesser degree, to some social discrimination, etc., that co-exists with other much more positive attitudes toward these immigrant groups. For example, I found some documents regarding ad-ab-immigration where some congressmen was requesting a visa for the daughter of a businessman, of the same. And the congressmen responded, although this category of people makes absolutely no contribution whatsoever to the country, I'm making you this favor.
So I take that document and say, so why if they make absolutely no contribution to the country using his words? Still, 10,000 out of immigrants managed to immigrate to Chile between 1890 and 1930. Similarly, if Jews were so undesirable and so hated, then why? And only one year in 1939, in the aftermath of Greece and not, almost 20,000 Jews came to Chile.
It was not only because the diplomats were selling visas in the like, no, no, no. It was because there was a contradictory approach to Jewish immigrants within the Chilean right. And so on the one hand, their religion was rescinded by some Catholic factions. Their occupation, especially when it came to trade and commerce, was rescinded by other factions in the right.
But after all, the recent went, they are businessmen, they are people, educated people, they are European people who are in possession of industrial know-how. So our economy, our education, Chile will gain importantly if we receive these people. So that's what I mean by acceptable and desirable. And to conclude my answer to this question, I think this acceptability of Arabs and Jews becomes especially particularly evident when it's compared with the Chinese experience, who were utterly discriminated against and it was very explicit.
Can you provide some more detail about the similarities and differences between Jewish, Chinese and Arab experiences in Chile? Sure, the mainstream narratives are, they, with the occupations, especially in the first years of after the arrival, they work as a pity traders, you know, I don't remember the words, the words, the ones that were missing. Pedalers, after which they managed to pay pedal first, then they managed to amass some capital to them. And with that money, they managed to establish shops, they lived in the cities, and they essentially gravitated towards commerce and trading.
That was essentially the main commonality. But there were differences, of course. Jews essentially lived in two or three, in the two or three biggest cities of the country, this is Santiago, Malparaiso and Conception. Arabs, on the other hand, they lived in multiple small towns, they went from the north to the south, the Chinese essentially focused on the north.
But also there was an important difference in terms of the education, the educational background of these immigrants. So, when, for instance, if you, if you consider the sources, documents emanating from universities in the 30s, you see, or private school or good, prestigious public schools, there are many Jewish students, there are very, very few other surnames and virtually none, a Chinese surname or last name. On the other hand, these Jewish immigrants, many can meet on many occasions, not only the Germans who came in the late 30s, but also earlier, came holding some college degrees, which allowed them to, for instance, establish a pharmacy, used to work in the chemistry industry, or have had some sort of industrial know-how, etc. So, the, the, the education background, I would say, was the main difference.
And also, of course, the, the, the, the hostility, that these three groups experience were not exactly the same. In the case of, of the Chinese, the racist element was enormous. In the case of Arabs and Jews was not that explicit. On the other hand, in the case of Jews, many, there was something that we, of course, we called anti-Semiticism or anti-Semitic tradition.
So, in other words, there was nothing comparable to the protocols of the other sub-science, to malign Arabs or Chinese, you know? In this regard, I want to mention that in Chile, in the 1920s, there were at least three, like local editions of the protocols of the other sub-science. I would say that those are the main commonalities and different interests. Who were the Chilean right wingers of the 1930s?
What distinguished Nazis does, fascists does, and Ibagnistas from conservatives, liberals, and other mainstream right wingers? In order to, to make more productive my research, I divide it, the T and right into three groups, three main groups. The first one is the right wing establishment. These are the mainstream right wingers.
In the case of Chile, these are the conservatives and the liberals. And these are people, these are what in the local context, we might say they were white men. In general, wealthy men with these wealth had its origins either in the 19th century period of the capitalist development or even before, in the colonial times, with these big huge, brutal states. These were the respectable people.
These were the families whose kids to the top schools, these diplomats came from this family. On the other hand, it's not necessarily French right wingers, but our right wingers who are not able to influence on decision making as much as the right wing establishment is. Of course, and here we can see for instance, the Nazis are a far right group in Chile, born in 1932. Notice that it was born one year before Hitler came to power.
And these Nazis are merely imitating the uniforms, the discourse, the performance of the German Nazis to a great extent, but not completely. In the first time, they exposed some anti-Semitic discourses, especially in their weekly, which afterwards became a daily. But it's not so sad that they didn't kill Jews. And even, not only that, in the late 30s, when they noticed that their anti-Semitic strategy to gain power was a complete failure in a country like Chile, they defended Jewish refugees.
There is a remarkable case that I mentioned in my book in which the Uruwayan authorities denied 81 Jewish-German refugees to disembark in Montevideo, arguing that there was a problem with their visas. So there was some delegation of Chilean congressmen happened to be there, and they sent a telegram to the Qing president of the time, the president of the year, and they managed to get visas for the refugees. And among the singers, there was Nazi. The Nazis, the Nazis, it's a group that devised from the Nazis, precisely because Nazis don't hate Jews, the citizens remarkable.
Even the ensnars are the followers of the former dictator, Carlos Ivanaz, who, if you were a Jew in 1930s Chile, and you see this former right-wing dictator who says he admires Mussolini and the light, you would probably be scared of this guy. But this guy didn't hate Jews either. On the contrary, he had multiple expressions of friendliness towards this, like many other right-wingers. So that is the main difference.
And the third group that I haven't mentioned is formed by right-wing intellectuals, right-wing priests, and right-wing military officials. So that's the main difference. Can you tell us about Chilean right-wing attitudes toward the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany and Jewish immigration? How did Chilean right-wingers react to episodes such as the Evian Conference and the Kristallnacht Pogrom?
I divided, I examined, I analyzed the attitudes or the approaches of each one of these groups toward the plight of the Jews in Germany and the subsequent growth in Jewish immigration. And I noticed that in the right-wing establishment, in the right-wing elite, two attitudes remain indifference toward the plight of the Jews in Germany with few exceptions, and hostility. Some people who said something in the light that, well, they just deserved that. Okay.
Well, also to be honest, I also know, traced some very, and not few, several cases of right-wingers, mainstream right-wingers who not only deplored publically condemned Hitler and the Nazis over the persecution of the Jews, but also took concrete measures to obtain visas for the Jewish refugees. I found, for instance, the case of Augustine Edward Smatur, this guy was a president of the Society of Nations. He was immensely rich. He was of a British descent, and he helped people.
He helped the, for instance, Jewish Austrians who had to follow the Anschluss in March 1939. There are many cases like this. I'm not the many, but several. Okay.
So it's diverse. When it comes to the less influential right-wingers such as Nacistas, Yba Nistas, Falangistas, and so on, I see more or less the same diversity of attitudes, but it's what is most remarkable, is that how Nacistas at some point, not only quit anti-Semitism, but also denounce it, at least when it comes to Nazi Germany. I think what is very remarkable is that the Catholic, I mean, the right-wing priests, they didn't say much about it. And that surprised me very much that the Catholic sources, there is a silence, but that silence screams my opinion.
Okay. There were some expressions of overt anti-Semitism, maybe not, of course, with racist arguments, but rather with Catholic ones, with a religious one, but there is some diversity. All you know, when you compare all these diversity of voices with what authors such as the Danyel Evovitch, Federico Fincien saying, Leonardo saying, man, and others have written about Argentina in the 30s, we see that the Chilean right wing was far less hostile to use than the Argentina one. This is for me a very important matter.
The reaction toward, I mean, following the avian conferences, that was very very sad episode in the history of the international relations. The reaction of Chile was essentially the reaction of most Latin American countries, which was the reaction of the US. That is to lament, to regret, to a lesser degree to condemn, the actions committed by the Nazi Germany, but they didn't take a serious steps in order to grow a Jewish immigration. No, and they didn't do that.
Not because they were necessarily anti-Semitism, it's because the commercial relations between Chile and Germany were important. Germany purchased so many agricultural items every year from Chile, it was probably not easy for these rich people who wanted to protect their own interests. And following Cristana, however, things were different. In this regard, Chile is not exceptional.
This happened in other places, even inside Argentina, with the problems I had in these regard in those years. Cristana, I mentioned in my book, it wasn't watershed in many regards. For instance, the newspaper in Merkul, which belonged to this, I would say, I would see Evers Mappur businessman. This newspaper was a very important political actor by itself.
No, it's not the representative of this or that guy. No, it's an easy by itself. And they adopted this kind of non-generals approach, so to speak, to the plight of the UC Germany. They kept silent, many patients.
They didn't defend the Jews. They didn't understand. But they did it after following Cristana and they did it at least two or three times. It's remarkable that they didn't do it immediately after Cristana.
The first editorial they published condemning the Germans over this sad horrible episode was like 10 days after. So what I think is that they saw the reaction in the rest of the media, they evolved the reaction in the British press, for instance, in the American one. And after that, they started not only condemning German government over this, but also calling to first, to the vote, the administration of right wing president, Arthur Alessandro, and later to center left president, President Pero Guevacaba, to open the gates to Jewish immigration. They only requested two or three things.
First, it needs to be legal orderly and to bring people to give priority to people in possession of industrial know-how, hopefully for Germany speaking. It could have been better. But I think it's remarkable that in those days, this right wing newspaper to get such a clear stand in favor of Jews and against Nazi Germans. How unique were Chilean right wing attitudes towards Jews?
How did they differ from those of Argentinian right wingers or other regional right wingers? There's nothing completely unique. I think it's totally exceptional. But of course, there are some features, there are some characteristics here of the Chilean case, which distinguished, you know, Chilean regular from Argentina, from Uruguay and Wales, and certainly from those in Peru and Bolivia and Ecuador.
I would say that what distinguishes the Chilean cases in the 30s is precisely what I was talking about, we say, coexistence, the simultaneously, simultaneously attitudes, negative and positive attitudes. And sometimes even the same actor change his stance. For instance, I mentioned an author, Joaquin Edwards Beyel, who at some point in the early 30s, he condemned Nazi Germany in the early 30s, sorry, in the early 30s, when the first episode of anti-Jewish violence took place following the trajectory of Hitler. But later, when reintroduced to Chile, he changed his mind, so my point is, these contradictions, these nuanced image, I would say, is the most remarkable part of Chilean right wingers and their attitudes toward Jews in the 30s.
In other words, I found much more sources, much more cases in which Chilean right wingers took broad Jewish stances than I expected when I started my research. This for me is remarkable. And I'm maybe at the end of this interview, we can briefly speak of my new endeavors, my new work, my new research, but I would like to mention that I know I found recently military sources that revealed that Jewish officers were part of the Chilean army and the Chilean navy since at least 1920, more or less, this impacted, this kind of issues impacted when Chilean right wing added to store Jews. And I think that this is the unique part of the story I would say.
Who were Natalyo, Bairman, Angel, Fybovic, and Marcos, Shamudes? Can you tell us about them? Yeah, of course, these are really interesting characters. Natalyo, Bairman, Marcos, Shamudes, and Ante, Fybovic, were the first three Jewish for Lamentarians, the first three Jewish congressmen in Chilean history.
And they are in a certain way, they are embodiments of the older generation of the Jewish immigrants to Chile. Natalyo Bairman was born in Ovesa, in Ukraine. He migrated to Buenos Aires from the Russian Empire, of course, before World War I. He arrived in the Citi de Bálleiso.
He studied in a public school where some of his classmates were so poor that he attended the school with no shoes, and this marked him so much. And he became a socialist. He was very active in the socialist movement. But at the same time, he was a socialist.
And he spoke Russian. He was a very, very weak character. In the 1980s, the government of Artur de Alessandri took his nationality, his chin nationality away from him. Why?
Because Alessandri wasn't as anti-semitic. No, because in Bairman was a poor and poor dictator. He was a socialist. Marcos, Shamudes, I mean, if some Netflix producer is listening to us, this guy has a story to make it serious or a movie.
Marcos Shamudes was born in Chile. His parents were from, his father was from Turkish descent, he was from Fadi. His mom was from Argentina, Eastern European origins. Shamudes studied in Citi de Bálleiso, like me, in many other Jewish tines of the time.
He went to Peru. He was one of the founders of the country's party there. He returned to 1929. He was a dictator.
He was many sources say that he was the best speaker. He's a very, very interesting case. He becomes a congressman and shortly after he's accused of, quote, unquote, immoral behavior. He's expelled.
He escapes sort of escapes to the US. He enrolls in the US Army. He goes to Europe. He works for the US Army.
He's a soldier. But at the same time, he's a photographer. Then he works for the United Nations. And then he returns to Chile.
And he becomes a fanatic anti-communist and will be until the moment of the true inventory of Agin. And the last one is I felt five of which also is Citi de Bálleiso, University of Chile, a radical, a radical party, in the world of, I mean, a centuries, secular centuries, a respected gentleman. But these three guys, in a certain way, they're evolution from the 30s. Well, Belman died in the 60s, you know, but they, in their change of their minds, politically speaking, we see how this small history of this small Jewish community of Chile interacts with a larger story of the whole world.
So the government died in the early 50s. After he, well, he, the Soviet anti-Semitism of the early 50s broke his heart. He left politics when he noticed that nobody else in the Chile left was as furious as he was about the, about Stalin and persecution of the Jewish intellectuals and the plot of the doctors and the like. But Michael Chamulles, he's like, he goes from all the stages in the beginning.
He was a communist, then he was an anti-communist. He worked for the CIA, you know, it's very, very, very strong, in a private region. A similar way, but it would be more, let's say, more respectable position more within the league than Chamulles. But I think that this three characters are remarkable.
And if you allow me to have Volalia Taitel, who's a big younger Volalia Taitel, but also parents from Ukraine, Jewish speakers, parents, very, very Jews, very, very, very, he's a European Jew, contrary to German, he's not a Zionist, he is a staunch, pro-Musco, harpliner. Yeah, I think these characters are remarkable. What was the Rauff affair? Can you explain this episode in Chile history?
Sure, of course, Vadarov was very important in Nazi Germany. He was responsible of the gas wagon, you know, the mobile gas chambers. He was perhaps not as important as Eichmann, of course, but he was important here. He escaped the prosecution after the war.
He lived in Syria, he lived in Guadalor. But in 1958, he comes to Chile. The recent historiography has revealed that he came. He went to Chile as an agent of the Western Germany's intelligence.
His mission was to, you know, be an undercover, to infiltrate the communist party in Chile. But this is done following the capture or kidnapping of Eichmann, you know, there is a phrase of Hanarov, that I like, that when she says in iconic Jerusalem that they kidnapped him, after the Israelis kidnapped, seized Eichmann, this reminded us Germany to prosecute that screaming. And among those, not screaming, was about to go out. So, but that was leading in the south of Chile, in Patagonia, in Poutarina city.
When in 1962, December, a tribunal here in Germany in Stuttgart, if I'm not wrong, issued this order of detention. And he was one day after he was immediately captured in Poutarina's and took in a plane to Santiago. This was in 1962. This was like a few, this kind of sound very like non-seer, but in a certain way it is important.
Chile, this small country, the end of the world, had recently hosted a workup, you know, a FIFA workup, a few months before. So, the capture of this Nazi is in a certain way this kind of a war event taking place in Chile. And the press in Chile has this approach. So naive, you know, like more interesting in the black leather jackets of the Nazis and their style over the horrific things in this idea, etc.
But you know, there is this trial, not to to to to to to to see to the divine whether he was in the idea of not, but whether he was to be extradited to Germany. But alas, there is a statute of invitation to bail and he was not extradited. He lived in Chile until the, until the mid-80s. Okay.
And this guy became a kind of a symbol of the Nazis who came to Latin America and never faced prosecution. Okay. It's important to have in mind that when, and he was, when he gave interviews two or three times, he was always emphasizing Israelism, wanted to kill me. And he was right.
No reason having some documents disclosed not long ago showed that in that time it was the years in which remembered Israelis, the Mossad, assassinated Herbert Zubus in in Uruguay, he said, and another war, and war criminal, they were looking for Mengele, of course. And yes, so he remained in Chile. It's not clear which networks protected him. It is it is possible that some connections within the Navy operated there.
We are not completely sure. But the issue is that he became important again in 1972, when Simon Bissen had requested President Allende to extradite Ralph, President Allende, who had so many displays of his friend in Estuar juice since the 30s, you know, I mean, when the partition on Palestine both in the United Nations took place, following that, the Zionist Federation of Chile organized like a meeting for the Chilean scientists. And one of the main speakers of the event was Sena Tor Sala Allende, a long standing friend of the youth. But Fr.
Allende was the president, you know, and had he was in travels and to he could not extra like legal, he could not extra like Ralph. He could only expel him, but he knew that he did so. The problem was not the Germans or the Nazis. The problem was the judiciary, you know, the the trade enough, because they would resent that President Allende overroof, you know, this decision.
So he said no, and even so, I mean, in Bissen, at least in the beginning, expressed that he, at this portion, he understood the painful decision of President And well, in 1984, Beatty and the other, the press of war journalists and following weeks in the government, something West, the Kingdom, France, Canada, all of them asked Pinochet to expel him. And even they already governed, who was very close ally of Pinochet because of the sales of weapons and war material. And supporting the UN, even they like asking him to pinochet, Pinochet says no. And shortly after Ralph dies and they never should expose like the courts, the rest of Ralph.
So some people in the community, they were saying no, he didn't really die. I mean, this is for another story, of course, but Ralph in this way was like kind of a reminder of for the Jews of Chile that things, there were ugly things, well, I mean, they were when we see they tried, they were Chileans, but there was this part of the story, you know, this kind of black room, you know, where the image of Ralph became this kind of the symbol of this painful past, you know, and that they and injustice was not served in this story. How popular was Salvador Allende among Jewish Chileans when he won the presidential elections of 1970? Who were the most prominent Jewish Ayan Distas?
President, say that again, the first was very popular among some sections of the Jews, especially among those who integrated earlier, you know, the 20th century in Satoras Natalia Verma, those Eastern European Jews, Voloia Teitelvoi, Giankev Pinovsky, and so on. He was also popular with the second generation who I was born in Chile, who went to public schools, like Miguel Launer, Ana Maria Verma Teitelvoi, many others. He was even popular with the third generation who were more prosperous, you know, wealthier, and well-fear, and in general private schools, including the Hebrew in-situ, or the Jewish school of Chile, or others, Medicaid was popular. He was remembered, when you see that the documents from the American Jewish Committee of the 60s, like 60s, before he won the election.
Many mentioned not necessarily the admiration for Ayan, the personal Ayan, but yes, the adherence to the Chile left. He was popular, but we need to be careful with this regard, because what happened in Chile uses, if you allow me comparison, very similar to what happened with using hunger in the 1920s. That is, there were a minority of Jewish leftists who were very vocal, who were very prominent in their local, left with parties, and these could lead us to think that something like the Jews, the Jews of Chile were left, it's not just like there was this minority vocal, you know, left with activists, there were also some many Jewish families, many Jewish individuals who were not left, who were not left, who were at zero, zero, and to see as some for Ayan De, though, as he said, that there was this kind of contradicting feeling. On the one hand, many, it's not most, I would say most, the vast majority of Chile used acknowledge Dr.
Ayan De as a symbol of democracy, rebel mechanism, respect for minorities, but on the other hand, they were very, very, you know, suspicious of his economic policies, which proved true at the end. I mean, so who were the main, the most prominent Jewish, I mean, the first place we can mention, we should mention, Tom in the Senate of all the data, I mentioned him earlier, and made your figure of the Chile, of the Chile Communist Party, and educated Jewish boy, living in a small town who comes to Santiago, in terms of study, you know, and in theaters, French, English, his parents, I mean, in his household, his parents spoke Russian, he was in his men of the world, okay, and he's one of the main viewers, but at the same time, there are many who are like, what Professor Ryan would call for the case of Argentinian peronism, like the second line, the second guard, and there are many, like Miguel Lao, where he's common among these, there are all of them are professionals, the vast majority earned their diplomas of the University of Chile, the secular public institution, most of them are affiliated to the Communist Party, and also, there is a vast majority of Eastern European Jews, very few from Garrian, and German speaking Jews, and remarkably also, there are a tiny minority, but very vocal of XFRB, who came early in the 20th century, just like the Geeks, there are many cases that I described there, perhaps too briefly, but I would say that one piece that we cannot skip is that of the mister of the culture, Jack Chuchol, Jack Chuchol, like in the case of Marco Chabuez, the son to Cefard B, Cefard B father from Turkey from Smirn, a mother, Argentina mother of Eastern European descent, educated, but he converts to the criticism, so this makes him a case unique, because this didn't happen in Chile, it's very, very rare, but for anti-Semitic or writing anti-Semites, he was a real Jew, and for some Jewish organizations abroad, who were paying attention to the persecuted Jews after the coup, he was a Jew as well, so it's very, very remarkable case, but regardless of the case of Cefard, there are many, many Jewish, I think, the most prominent, of course, are Golo, the Jack Chuchol, Miguel Lao, among others, yes, and also, I would like to mention that it by the man, because of it by the man with Jack Chuchol, where the symbols of the agrarian reform in the 60s and 70s, and regardless of their conspicuous road in season, lands belonging to the right wingers, and the same edism was not a central feature of the right and right organization of the Bureau. Can you tell us about the Jewish exodus that followed Aende's victory? How did Aende's economic policies impact the Jewish community of Chile?
The sources held at the JDC Archives in New York contain so much information about these or, quote, exes of the Jewish Chileans. In brief, the Jewish community of Chile was between 35 and 40,000 people in 1970 that sat in the weeks before Aende's won the elections, and many sources say that in the following weeks after the election, around 10% of the Jewish community of Chile fled the country, left the country, okay, especially the richest families. These had an impact in many for the Jewish community, especially for the Jewish institutions, because since the richest families fled, since people were not eager, who were not willing to spend money on social activities and it was an immediate impact. It was hard.
Where did they go? Like most children, including non-Jewish, who fled or left following Aende's victory, the majority went to one side. It went to Argentina, but unlike other Chileans, a good portion went to Israel, Medallian, others went to the United States, Canada. I found a letter of a rabbi in Australia preparing to offer options for the teams even before again they won, because these were people who were very traumatized by their experiences in Europe, either at the hands of the Nazis or the communists.
This was a very, you know, maybe for us today, there are some sources who are very difficult to understand. For example, when they compare the West Danden and he's reading with the Nazis, his is beautiful, his is absurd for us, but for some, for those people, for those families, highly traumatized. I mean, it's what they felt. In this case, in this regard, I would like to mention a case which is very, very symbolic, which is the story of Anne-Marie Varema, which in Chile was named Anna Maria Varema.
Her story, like many stories which I took about, are available in the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. She returned to German when again the one, and this is remarkable, because she had the opportunity, I've been tracing her story in the archives here in Germany as well, from a current project. Her family received a reparations, a property restitution as well, something which was not easy, it was very difficult, really, to attorneys advising you, it was expensive, especially in the first time, and the family consistently declined to the possibility to return to West Germany, although it was much more convenient from an economic point of view, because it was, of course, an emotional, enormous emotional dimension there. However, when again the one, even them, even the vallebergs, you know, took the step to return.
So what I mean here is, yes, I mean the economic policies of President Allende proved unsuccessful, I think, from that point of view, it wasn't that, not with the administration, it's almost impossible to defend the Allende's administration, this from the economic point of view. He was a symbol of democracy, but yes, the impact was immediate, but it was also needed for the, for the others. The Palestinians, the Chilean, the Palestinian Chileans, there are some, there were always, I mean, from the 30s, at least very important businessmen, you know, in the textile industry, you know, they got all funny, for instance, they, in the 30s, they already owned a bank. They were terribly rich.
And when again, they won, he immediately sees their main, you know, industry, their main, and your factory. So it was not an issue about the Jews. It's more here we see the interaction of class elements with ethnic elements. What happened to Jewish Ayan Distas after the coup of September 1973?
Well, the story of Ayan Distas, the story of, of those who were part of the Ayan administration was a sad story, of course, following the coup. Those who suffered the most in the following days were actually peasants and workers who had no connection, who had no embassy, where to hide, I would know politician, friend, to, you know, hide them. That said, some people, you know, in the, in the little bit of the, of the Ayan administration, still suffered their match. This is impossible to neglect.
The case of the Jews, of the Jewish Ayan Distas, there were different stories. Okay. I mean, for instance, Sennador, a Bologna Taitelboim was in Rome when the coup d'etat took place. So he stayed in Europe for him.
It was not that terrible. Minister Chanchole, Dr Chanchole, the minister of Gabbie Kortor, he had resigned at the moment of the month before the coup. He, he went to, you know, hiding the hidden them in the embasio, Venezuela, huge house, which hosted dozens and dozens of Ayan Distas. Many others went to Islam, also on the island, concentration camp, had this as a known historiography, like the architect, Béil Lautner, for instance, Loye Ripega, who, afterwards, yeah, etc., others, would die horribly.
Maybe one of the most documented, the most, there are two cases who are perhaps the most emblematic. The first one is that of Carlos Berge, Carlos Berge, his father, Julio, or Julius Berge, was of a conveyor in descent. He related to Chile when he was in the boy. The mother of Carlos was a Gora Realik.
She came as a child, too, from Ukraine. Gdishi speaking, Eastern European Jewish girl, they grew up in Chile. They were communists. Their children were communists, since they were 13 years old, sort of, kind of, communist, or something, you know, their stories are remarkable.
Carlos Berge was like this type of exemplary, you know, communist, educated, and spoke more to the languages, rather to the USSR, to attend, you know, courses of political trainees. He was like the leader of the communist party, and he was working in the, he studied, he was a lawyer. He worked as a journalist, as many people, people, like, they tell my many people who studied law but never worked as lawyers. Well, they choose that he goes and he, the leader authorities calls the people who work for the administration following the coup, you know, to submit to the, the goal in person to this headquarters of the Mediterranean, they're like, he goes and he, he was executed, half days after, and he's a widow, a communist, who is a communist woman, very pro-Israel, I like to add, she has been, you know, very active, keeping, making this story, this horrific story public.
And I would say that the other very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very very much. far left entity. She belonged to an Eastern European family, who came in the early 20th century from Ukraine as well. Her parents and herself, enthusiastic scientists, she went to Israel in June 1967, not as a soldier, but she collaborated, I think, like a feeling if I'm not wrong, is right, the soldiers.
And she returned very disappointed from the experience for what she saw of the treatment of Palestinians. And so she switched to the revolution from she went from Zion to the revolution. Okay, and she was a good driver, you know, but then came to the coup and she started with the, and she keeps very, very great, very great woman. But she was captured, tortured, she was pregnant.
And she died in horrible, in Cucil, her, was Miguel Grasnov, Marc Cenco. Grasnov was of Russian descent, his grandfather, General Piotr Krasmo, was the leader of the Cossacks, and fought with the Nazis against the Soviet and was executed after World War II. It's an unbelievable story. How in the end of the world, you know, this grandchild of General Piotr Krasnov face-to-face in this clandestine place with the grandchild of Gdish speaking immigrants, and the guy says, I'm not going to repeat this, but the avi-worth, he said, he said she's not only a communist, she's also a Jewish, she must die.
And he killed her in a very brutal way. I would say that those are the two more, more emblematic, many others who didn't die, managed to reach Israel, others returned to Germany, such as the Gunter Selma, other friends to Europe, such as the Lautner, and so on. Can you comment on the attitudes towards Jews and Israel by general Pinochet and the Hinta? What are some examples of the attitudes Pinochet and the Hinta adopted?
What were the military and chilies views of Jews in Israel? A few days after the Riku, an American Jewish congresswoman, Bella Absook or Bella Asabu, I don't remember how I was expelled. She was a very New York Democrat figure, I'm sure the listeners will know when I'm talking about. A few days after Riku she denounced the US Congress that the Hund and the Chican soldiers were executing people with Jewish last names, calling for the radio to anyone who was Jewish to give up and blah blah blah.
This was false. It was false, but in the mind of the Americans, Europeans, they saw the images of military rulers, the container, and they viewed it as a bunch of Nazis, no, it's power. But they were not. When I'm saying this, I'm certainly not defending Pinochet or the Hund or any other dictatorship.
Pinochet was a leader. He assassinated people. He stole public property from us, the Chilians. But he was not the Nazis.
I'm mentioning this because there was a clash from the beginning between the bishop and the conscription in the northern hemisphere of what was happening in Chile. With the clash of that, with the image of many right-wing Jews, or at least Jews who were detractors opponents or became opponents of identity in their vision of what was going on. There are so many letters from Chile to the JDC explaining what was the real situation. And what was the situation?
Pinochet, the Hund, the military had multiple displays of friendiness to where Jews seemed the very beginning of the regi presence. A few days after the coup, General Stavoli, who headed the Air Force, what the head of the Air Force, he received a delegation of Jewish notables. In a certain way, Ari, it was this man who came to represent the interests of the Jewish community in Chile during those years of Pinochet. They were, most of them, almost all the time, were a handful of men of Eastern European descent, descent from Russian Jews, who in this situation, they opened their toolbox and they used what their grandparents and the grandparents of their grandparents did, a sort of chtadlanur.
What that's this term is, it's a kind of internal diplomacy, a handful of Jews speaking on behalf of the interests of the whole community vis-a-vis the detail, in this case, or the Xar in the past, in Russia, and the military was regurgated. There were so many gestures in the high holidays, sending a delegation of the victory, statements in favor of Israel, a reception to the Israeli ambassador, voting in favor of Israel, the United Nations, Israel's portency in the United Nations as well, and so on. From 1973, from the coup to 1977, these four years, these four first years, they are discovering new forms or how to make this triangular relationship between the Hundah, the Israeli government, and the leaders of the Jewish community, how to make it a stronger connection, more cordial, etc. And in 1979, in the high holidays, Pinochet, in person, Pinochet himself, attends the synagogue, and the Jewish leaders are exultant and incredibly happy about these, they call him president Pinochet, and so on.
He has also many displays of friendliness toward the Jews of Chile and toward Israel, and it's important to bear in mind that for the military who were not extremely refined in their perceptions, Jew, Israeli, Israelite, Hebrew, it was everything the same. Okay, they conflated all these terms and realities. Your book notes that although Chilean right wingers embraced increasingly and growingly radicalized positions in the 1970s, few embraced anti-Semitic attitudes and few committed acts of anti-Jewish violence, what made the Chilean right wing so starkly different from the Argentinian right wing? What explains the differences?
This is a fundamental question, perhaps a big question with the second part of my book. I argue that regardless of the similarities between the Chilean right wingers and Argentinian right wingers, there are some elements. First Jews were white in Chile, in a nation where the majority of the population is mestizo, none wide. These gave Jews and also the immigrants from some creations, a kind of different, certain status, so to speak, within the Chilean society.
Even the Arab immigrants who were not necessarily white were part of this, you know, let's say, or a privilege group. On the other hand, it's important to bear in mind that the Chilean at the far right in the 30s and the years of fascism was not really strong. It was rather marginal. And even in that moment, that far right, resorted to anti-Jewish violence.
It was just not the matter of, you know, it was not in the toolbox. Okay, if we see like the long story, the long trite story of this, but it was also related to something left evident, which is the weakness of anti-Semitism or the weakness or the relative weakness of Catholic anti-Jewish sentiment in Chile. Again, when you compare it, for instance, the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, the 60s, the Catholic publications in Chile and Argentina, the Argentinian priests were much more obsessed with the Jews than the priests were. Okay, in Argentina, to be a communist and to be a Jew in the eyes of the right in priests was more or less the same.
In Chile, no, the tradition, like the tradition of anti-Semitic discourses, for instance, the protocols of the elders of Zion were popular in the 20s, were not popular in the 70s, as they were in Argentina. So in the combination of these elements, I think we can understand why in Chile, the right conversation did not include this anti-Semitic element. And also, it's also important to bear in mind that some Jews were part, not also, not only of the armed forces, but they were part also of this far-right movement, such as Pátélata. I recently read the memories of one of the years, Pátélata, Proecco Jimin, a right-winger of German descent, his memories, he even mentioned at least two Jewish friends were part of the movement.
So perhaps the question should be, why did Argentina wear a disability? And not why the Jews were not? That's why I was mentioning at the beginning that how they're finding some of my research maybe should help us to shed light on other Jewish experiences in the continent. Okay?
Yeah, I can say that the response goes, and also, and of course, I cannot skip this part, we can't forget the context, you know, the background of the Cold War. In these years, we know we've reached to bear in mind that in the past many right-wingers in the Western War, when in the past, you know, used anti-semitic and Jewish rhetoric, that would be that was replaced by anti-communist, you know, these courses. They gravitated toward that, I would say. I'm not sure if I'm responding to your question.
Thank you. That was very detailed. Thank you. Who was Miguel Serrano?
What made him relevant in the context of the 1980s? Miguel Serrano was a right-winger, very special one. He was born in 1917, in the 30s, in the time of the Jewish immigration, the big Jewish immigration in 1939. He said, you know, young men, he doesn't participate very much in the politics yet, but he's very well connected.
He's a poet, he's a relatively talented writer, he's a good looking handsome tall, blue-eyes man, isn't that legendary? Very charismatic. And in the 50s, he has married, he manages to be appointed by President Vanias, who had been a dictator in the 20s, but was democratically elected in 52. He appointed Serrano the first charge and affairs of Chile in India, after which he starts this career as a diplomat.
He's a very educated, you know, refined man. And he writes books of the territory. He publishes in real-game publishers in houses in English, in India, first, in London, in New York, I don't know, a round-edge, like, where he writes some columns of its, another very complex for the New York Times in the 60s and 70s, but he's an Nazi. And kind of everyone knows, you know, but he exists to do a life, double life.
And when President Allende wins the election in the 70s, in September 4, and 70, after the Congress ratifies his victory, one of the first things he does in the history of foreign relations is to kick Vigas Rann out. And he remains in Europe, and he wastes a network of contacts with figures such as Leon de Grael, the Nazi from Belgium, Otos Conzenni in Madrid, and many others. He visits Julius Evela in his whole apartment in Rome, and so on and so on. In 1978, he publishes a very bizarre book, which is not a novel, it's kind of essay titled The Golden Thread, A Sotery Kid, the Reason.
And it's not a popular figure, for sure, but becomes like a cold figure in the neo-Nazis around the world. And in 1984, when the other classes go to Chile, the last European age to expect love, the future says no, and then love dies. And when the funeral is coming to an end, in the main cemetery of Santiago, Chile, the guy in a black leather coat comes approaches and he makes a Nazi salute and screams the high Hitler, high Bataras, and the journalist Conz, you know, is very, you know, particular approach, so naive, so uncritical. And the guy managed to be interviewed by the main newspapers in the following days, and he is the first one in Chile who was using that platform, probably denies the Holocaust, he suggests the readers to read Robert Forrezon, and I don't know, the classics, such as the speak of the Holocaust, the naive territory, and Peter said that's nothing, nothing regarding that.
And in 1985, he publishes a new book, and in 1986, he publishes three books, all of these, and he used the territory, of course. And in 1987, he publishes Planetenia, which is a sort of South American version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in order to which the Jews, Israel is going to cease Patagon, and establish a second new, which is there. And he organizes a public homage, you know, like a tribute to Rur, he has following his death in August 1987. And in 1988, he publishes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their application in Chile.
And in 1989, he publishes the Neuteloyster, the French Neuteloyster Report, and so on. So it's important, because Pinochet allowed that nothing like that was possible in Pinochet's Chile without the permission of the military. It was impossible. And the Jews, the leaders of the Jewish community, knew that, and they sent letters to each other, they explored the community of Sue, and we get to see the original of a leveraging, the influence, using the influence, they have a way with the military.
It's a very fascinating topic. So what was the message? Pinochet was trying to convey by allowing this, I think, is my interpretation. He was letting the Jews of Chile, and the Americans, especially, know that he was a friend of the Jews, but he could perfectly stop being a friend of the Jews.
You know, Susarranon was a kind of reminder. He was like, it wasn't a certain way against the crowd, not for the same reason, of course, but he was a sort of reminder. But yes, this is a good story, a story with the Jews have been incorporated, not even a fascist-like date, or like Pinochet, haunts them. Yeah, that's true.
That's a part of the story, the most important, probably, but on the other hand, again, this dark room where this, you know, of this story is waiting for me, it's a very interesting character. What do you consider your book's contributions to Jewish studies and to Chilean history and to Latin American studies? What do you see your book's primary contributions to be to academic literature? The first contribution to Chilean historiography is that this is the first important work, the first serious book work on Jewish immigration, besides, of course, of course, that book of Professor Yem Tupojak of the 90s, Exilicira.
You know, she worked with, essentially, with German sources. I worked with Chilean and Jewish sources as well, and also both books complement each other. But besides these two books, there are nothing very important regarding the Jewish immigration. They are an identity publisher as important as Braille, you know, in English.
This means that it can reach other readers. But alas, in Chile, there are no, there is not much interest on these topics. Alas, you know, I would say that the main contribution to the Jewish studies is also, similarly, I'm sharing light on the case of a country such as Chile, which had not been studied enough. But I think that my main contribution and this is what I expect to keep doing in my second book is to make contribution to the study for anti-Semitic worldwide.
I'm reviewing now an excellent book edited by Scott Cui and Guy Biort in his read about anti-Semiticism. An excellent book, I have to say. And this is the umpteenth's occasion in which a very illuminating book of anti-Semiticism says absolutely nothing about Latin America. This could be due, you know, maybe this is because the history of the use of Latin America has not included, you know, this significant space of physical violence, which even the one hand is something possible, right?
But I think it's not only that, that there is this kind of, you know, exclusion of other Jewish experiences in the global south. But I'm optimistic in this regard, and I'm sure that there are, in their next book, I probably would include something about Latin America. Okay, but I think there is something more important than that, because if you ask me for instance, what type of history book is, social history, economic history, school history, I think it's a bit of social history, it's a bit of cultural history. I mean, I prefer to choose this topic and to use all the analytical tools that I can use to try to do my job as a historian, which is to give an interpretation to the past.
Okay, so if in this endeavor I manage to do a contribution to all these fields, oh, that would be great. But again, my interest is to eliminate this untold story. So, right in this image, in Latin America and the lack thereof. Can you tell us about the Isla Dalson camp facility?
What kinds of atrocities occurred there? What if anything differentiates it from other similar sites? Not also, unfortunately, this was not a concentration camp, this was the military facility, which existed long before the coup. Many several ministers or top or high ranking officials in the administration were taken there.
These were educated people, several were Jews, and were Jewish, and so they used their tools to interpret when they were living. So, they called it a concentration camp and tried it to assimilate the military with the Nazis in comparison in terms of the atrocities that were lived there. This terrible to do this kind of comparison, but compared to what happened in other places, it wasn't very mild in those treatment, what these people experienced there. I'm sure that if they're children or grandchildren of these people, listens here to this historian saying that, they must be upset, but alas, it's true.
In comparison with the London Frank D'Ocho, we had the Simone Baudilla. These people were leaders and had a relatively privileged treatment if that war can be used. And it became emblematic because one of the Jewish persons who was held there with the years after accused Walter Gao, having designed this for a gold concentration camp, which is very, very likely. What makes a difference in this regard is essentially that it was a detention camp in the Patagonia and this extremely harsh weather conditions for the leaders of the Baudilla Baudilla.
What was the caravan of death overseen by General Arriano Stark? The element of death was when the military, like the Chileans break their oath to their homeland and they carry out a coup d'etat, they need to have a justification and they spoke of war. This is a war, they said, but of course it was not the war. And they said we found a lot of resistance, armed resistance from the left, but they didn't find that.
They didn't find that. So they needed a justification to justify this and what did they do? Pinochet gave orders to this Arriano Stark, military close to the Christian Democrats. And he went with an helicopter from the north to the south, stopping in different cities.
And they went to the barracks and they got some people there and they shot to death. They executed many people in this horrible way. It was like a shock therapy, not only for the victims, but also even for the military. This was to be expected.
And in the story that I've been talking about today, it's important because some, I mean, Carlos Berge, for instance, was a victim of Caravan and where the Caravan of Death. What were the similarities and differences between Jewish-Chillians' experiences of the Pinochet dictatorship and Arab-Chillians' experiences of the Pinochet dictatorship? I appreciate your question, Ali, because it even allows me to point out one of the most important findings of the second part of my book, which is that the reaction of Jews to the coup d'etat, to the dictatorship that followed, was far from being exceptional. The Arab-Chillians reacted in a very similar way.
There are institutions applaud, welcome. They congratulated the Arab Pinochet. They called the Pinochet who was a dictator. They called him president, and said that very similar, the businessmen in the Arab community were happy about that, the restitution of the property.
Like the Yerufami that I mentioned earlier, it's very, very similar. But there are some different supports. Well, in another different, another similarity that specifically the Palestinian-Chillians, just like the Jewish-Chillians, they tried to pressure the government in order to get a more friendly position of the government to work piece right on to work Palestine. And there are some very interesting developments because Pinochet in general favored Jews over Palestinians, but not all the time.
And there were some nuances in this regard, especially the 70s, or the early 80s. Also, when some countries moved their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, moved them back, actually. And they did not. And there were some disappointment, and some Jewish leaders with regards to the decision of a Pinochet.
But in other moments, the disappointment was to be found among the Palestinian-Chillians. So there are many similarities. On the other hand, we got an osu! mention that Arabs served the Pinochet's cabinet in the 70s.
Jorge Kawas, a very important economist, which is so very early on. But also in Jewish, attorney, the Ed Schweitzer. Also, they are very, very similar. Actually, if we follow the trajectory of Arabs and Jews in Chile from say the 1910s or 1920s to the end of the Pinochet years, we could trace so many similarities.
There are some differences as well, of course, they are not the same. But there are many similarities. And those similarities are much more related with class matters than with ethnic matters, I would say. As we bring today's dialogue to a close, can you tell us about where your time and attention have gone since completing this work?
Of course, I am now working in my second book, which is about the project. I'm working on now here at the Latin America Institute in the Free University of Ireland. I am working in a research project headed by Professor Ishef and Reunke and Professor Nikolas Goodhat, which is about the German Jews, the Jewish Germans, specifically from Berlin, who escaped to Latin America in the 30s and early 40s and who returned or did not return to Germany and to Berlin specifically after the war. And last, I could not do a trade to Israel to work in some archives.
I had planned a trip there in November, but for obvious reasons, I could not do it. And so I hope that next year, I can do a new book a new book could be published. I'm not sure. Your research is absolutely necessary and I can hardly thank you enough for your erudition, conscientiousness and thoroughness, both in the book and in the conversation we had today.
No, at least thank you, my friend, it's an honor to know that someone like you has read my book, it has expressed me such good opinions. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and I want to also take the opportunity to thank Professor Van Andrin and the people at the Tel Aviv University who made this book possible and my PhD are possible. So thank you, Alie. As we bring today's dialogue to a close, I'm signing off as Ari Barble at your host today on the New Books and Jewish Studies podcast.
Today, it has been my blessing and my sincere honor to be in dialogue with Dr. Gustavo Guzman. He is associate researcher at the Latin America Institute at the Free University of Berlin. We have been discussing his newly published book, Attitudes of the Chilean Right Towards Jews from Acceptable Undesirable to Respected Businessmen, published in Leiden Netherlands by Brill 2022.
Thank you. A Saver Ontario means more police and prosecutors making sure my card doesn't get stolen. It means building new jails, the key criminals behind bars. And it means there's no need to wear me when I play at the park.
We're making every corner of Ontario safer to make all of Ontario safer. That's how we protect Ontario. For all of us. Learn how at ontario.ca slash Saver Ontario paid for by the Government of Ontario.