Time Magazine
Sarah Palin must have hoped that her Jan. 12 video statement would silence her critics, who, in the wake of the Tuscon shootings, have accused the controversial politician of contributing to the vitriolic rhetoric that plagues U.S. politics. But then Palin decided to describe the attacks leveled against her as a "blood libel." The phrase has a long, grim legacy tied to centuries of European persecution of Jews. Bigoted superstition had it that Jews needed the blood of heathens for various ritual practices. Within hours of the statement's publication and the video's appearance on Facebook, the Anti-Defamation League criticized Palin's message, saying that, while blood libel "has become part of English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
On the other hand, a group called jewsforsarah.com declared that "the use of the term blood libel is appropriate." Meanwhile, on biggovernment.com, Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School said the term "has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning" and "There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations..." [...]
Sarah Palin must have hoped that her Jan. 12 video statement would silence her critics, who, in the wake of the Tuscon shootings, have accused the controversial politician of contributing to the vitriolic rhetoric that plagues U.S. politics. But then Palin decided to describe the attacks leveled against her as a "blood libel." The phrase has a long, grim legacy tied to centuries of European persecution of Jews. Bigoted superstition had it that Jews needed the blood of heathens for various ritual practices. Within hours of the statement's publication and the video's appearance on Facebook, the Anti-Defamation League criticized Palin's message, saying that, while blood libel "has become part of English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
On the other hand, a group called jewsforsarah.com declared that "the use of the term blood libel is appropriate." Meanwhile, on biggovernment.com, Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School said the term "has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning" and "There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations..." [...]
I think it is pretty appropriate. They are basically claiming that she killed these people, just like Christians claimed that Jews killed heathens.
ReplyDeleteShe is 100%, it is a blood libel. We Jews call any trumped up charges against us a "blood libel", and it became an expression.
ReplyDeleteShe has every right to use the expression against the trumped up charges which were leveled against her.
Don't forget, the liberals are using this tragic shooting as an excuse to further the Obama agenda, and to close down dissenting media. (Which could one day include blogs).
We must support Palin in her fight against the liberals of this country who are slowly tearing apart our great country.
I dont know enough about Palin, but the murderer in this case was a looney , not someone affiliated with Palin.
ReplyDeleteBUt similar allegations were made against various Israeli and Jewish groups and persons after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. They accused Netanyahu, the religious right, and in fact all of those who opposed Rabin's politics - and some also called this a blood libel.
It should also be noted that the ones who were inciting hatred for rabin were actually the Shin Bet agents posing as religous zionist extremists. So it was the Rabin government's own people who created the hatred. As for who really shot Rabin, there are a lot of interesting conspiracy theories!
Wow,eddie,i didn't know how much you were in conspiracy ideas.I mean all the statements were really given by the shin bet dressing up like other people.And the murder isn't clear either!get down to earth.
ReplyDeleteI don't see this as anything more than liberal spin. Blood Libel is an appropriate term for any false accusation of having blood on one's hands.
ReplyDeleteBnei Brit has nothing to do outside of screaming about hallucinations. I remember some years ago when they had a baby over a town in Ontario that was celebrating its 100 year anniversary. Its name is Swastika. This has been the town's name since it was chartered. It is situated between to attached lakes and the name means adjoining waters in Cree.
Another disturbing thing about them is that they have a fetish for attacking Philo Semites.