If Sarah Palin's seven-minute video blaming the media was meant to tamp down the rhetoric in the aftermath of the assassination attempt against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, she may have added fuel to the fire by hitting a jarringly off-note:
Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
Palin’s Comments Insensitive to Jewish History?
If Sarah Palin’s seven-minute video blaming the media was meant to tamp down the rhetoric in the aftermath of the assassination attempt against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, she may have added fuel to the fire by hitting a jarringly off-note:
Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
To critics, Palin was reckless in her choice of words because “blood libel” is fraught with historic connotations.
“The term has a very specific meaning” connected to the charge that Jews used the blood of Christian boys in preparing matzah for the Passover Seder, said Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies. “Governor Palin could have found a better term, especially given the fact that Representative Giffords is Jewish.”
Palin’s use of the term is “glaringly inappropriate and displays a profound lack of historical sensitivity,” said Jenna Weissman Joselit, a professor of history and Judaic studies at George Washington University.
“I would have advised against using it — the term is historically unique and refers specifically to false charges of ritual murder,” said Noam Neusner, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and the son of a famed Talmudic scholar. “While Ms. Palin has a legitimate gripe against her liberal critics, who were wrong to associate the Tucson shooter with her politics, she is using a term that simply does not apply. She could have simply used the word ‘libel’ and she would have been fine.”
Palin is not the first conservative to use the term. Commentator Andrew Breitbart used the term in a tweet Tuesday, writing, “And to the gutless GOP establishment who watches in silence the blood libel against @SarahPalinUSA. We will remember. #TeaParty”
The blood libel myth dates back to the 12th century, when Jews were first falsely accused of kidnapping Christian children to re-enact the martyrdom of Jesus Christ. Throughout history it was used to justify violence against Jews, from pogroms to the Holocaust.
Because of the phrase’s central role in stoking anti-Semitism over the centuries, Palin’s use of it hit home immediately with Jewish commentators:
* Conservative Jonah Goldberg gently chided Palin in the National Review for using the term in a context that “isn’t ideal.”
* Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic that he hoped this would be a teaching moment for Christians “because the blood libel still has modern ramifications — Israel, after all, was founded as a reaction to Christian hatred, of which the blood libel was an obvious and murderous manifestation.”
* “There are few more freighted phrases in the history of hate than ‘blood libel,’ wrote Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman. ”This anti-Semitic attack has resulted in countless pogroms and massacres through the ages. Saint Sarah, it seems, is now comparing herself to one of those martyrs.“
Palin has been a strong supporter of Israel, and even her staunchest critics don’t suggest that anti-Semitism is behind the faux pas.
But Robert Lehrman, a former speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, said Palin’s choice of words was likely not accidental.
”Only Jews know about“ the visceral meaning of the term, he said. ”And because the right and some tea party people — like Tony Katz — talk about the Jewish-dominated media, the unspoken implication is this: ‘Most people won’t get this, but you Jewish reporters know what I’m saying.’“
Others said that beyond the poor choice of words, the video message underscored that Palin may be problematic as a presidential contender in 2012.
”Sarah Palin, a woman of unquestionable charm and personal appeal, is unfortunately deeply ignorant — certainly not stupid, but shallow and unreflective,“ said Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker. ”Republican voters have picked up on this and have concluded that she is unfit for the presidency. Her impulsive comments are inconsistent with what is demanded of a president, which requires that they resist the temptation to toss off quips that might have serious consequences.“
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, co-author of ”Presidents Creating the Presidency: Deeds Done in Words“ and one of the country’s leading experts on political speech, said Palin’s use of the term distracted from the merits of her argument: ”We judge those aspiring to lead not only by what they say but by how they say it.”
LOL
love the deeply ignorant comment by the Rutgers Prof> LOL
Oh please!
This is such a red herring!
There is nothing wrong with what (future president, we hope) Mrs. Palin said. She is great! and inspirational!
This article is such an example of political rhetoric, realpolitik!
C.H.
Those who hate will always find something to hate. Why is it ok to accuse her of shedding blood, but it’s not ok for her to point out how they accused her of shedding blood a.k.a blood libel.
This is just another excuse to attack a innocent person who has done no harm to anyone.
I hope she runs for president, she sure will get my vote!
Milhouse
Blood libel is EXACTLY the right word for what has been going on. These people complaining are unbelievable. The blood in Arizona was still warm when they all decided that it was Palin’s fault, making up lies out of thin air and accusing her of being responsible for the murder of a 9-year-old child. And now it seems they expected her to just stand there and take it; the minute she points out that she has done nothing wrong, nothing to be ashamed of, and the whole thing is a blood libel, they attack her for that! Of course if she’d remained silent they’d be saying that this proved she was guilty; there is literally nothing she can say or refrain from saying that will not make them attack her.
And meanwhile there really is violent, horrible rhetoric out there — against Palin and her family. Death threats, rape threats, the worst. Apparently it’s bad to “target” opposition congressional seats in an election campaign, but just fine to call for someone to die a horrible death. Explain that one, please.
Milhouse
Sarah Palin is a true oheves yisroel. She’s not one of those politicians who only makes nice with the Jews when they need our votes or our money; she had an Israeli flag in her office when she was governor of a state with a few hundred Jews, none of whom is a huge donor. She did it because she means it with an emes.
And I’m 100% sure that she knew exactly what a blood libel is, and used the term on purpose.
Blood Libel
I always thought that a blood libel was when someone was falsely accused of murder. For instance in the middle ages it was popular to accuse Jews of murdering a Christian child. In this case the Media and cronies are accusing Sarah Palin and others of……Murder! Looks like an appropriate use of the language. Since when do we Jews have a trademark on words?
Andrea Schonberger
Please!!! When are people going to realize that Palin is a first class bimbo. Plus, I’m getting fed up with Yidden who kiss up to anyone who utters the magic phrase “I’m a friend of Isreal”. Friends like her we can do without.
Eli Federman
Good question. I don’t think it is insensitive to Jewish history.
Political commentator and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out that the term has been used frequently as a metaphor and in a broader context.
“The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse,… I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim.”
There have been many news commentators who insinuated and outright claimed that Palin’s campaign bullseyes on Gifford’s district somehow lead to or sent the shooter over the edge. I’m certainly no fan of Palin’s politics but agree with Dershowitz on this issue. This type of commentary is incendiary and lacks any evidence whatsoever.
CHT
to all the hoppers – she absolutely cannot become a President. She is a good person with all right ideas but demonstrates shameful lack of political experience. Just think – why she was attacked now for nothing? Because she already exposed herself as weak defenseless politician.
A Rabbi
Actually blood libels have killed much less Jews than scapegoating has. The holocaust was a reaction to the scapegoating of Jews for the economic woes of the Weimar Republic (Germany). She has therefore been mild with the term bloodlibel because she really could have used scapegoating which was more accurate, and would have been more harsh on her critics.
I have no comment on whether she would make a great president, but her love to the Jewish people is well known. She therefore undoubtedly is not to be accused of any derisiveness towards the Jewish community.
Len
“Comments must be approved before being published.”??! OK approve this!
I’ve never in my life thought that there are so many “idiottos” among us, “the jewsiwh people”. Until they elected a frik’n Marxist with his [national] socialist friends. Like socialist Hitler in Germany.
And now you are talking about Sara Palin?!
You did this in Russia once. STOP!! You will cause another Holocaust! You didi already so many times! NO, there’s no such thing as “social justice”!
b, friedman
mrs. palin is similar to the state of israel
everything is blamed on her and she can’t do anything right!
Why the complaints?
It simply means that she wanted to use a serious term to make a point and recognizes that ‘blood libel’ is a serious term. That is a good thing. Although I don’t know very much about her record, she appears to be a friend in an increasingly hostile world – If that is so, why make an enemy of her by creating a problem that doesn’t exist?
elisha
i agree with all comments 100% there are those that make reality fit their view and those that make their views fit reality
Morristown
She’s a big fat liberal who needs to listen to her anyways?!
Agree with #12
These days when most of the non-Jewish world hates you it means you’re one of the good ones. C’mon, a little hakoras hatov.
How it is
I don’t think Palin should take any of this personally. Unlike Israel & England etc who had women prime ministers, America will do anything to denigrate any normal woman who tries to run for president. America, which once stood for true democracy, has unfortunately become an extemely biased country in terms of religion, gender, race (and I don’t mean black), and even wealth (and I mean those fortunate enough to have it).
Esther
Sarah Palin is absolutely right. It is a blood libel, and the liberal Jews who are angry at her for saying that don’t care about the Jewish history, or they wouldn’t have voted for Obama, who seems to be doing everything he can to insure that Israel and the Jews are made scapegoats all over again.
Milhouse
#9, If she were weak, with no chance of becoming president, these menuvolim wouldn’t bother attacking her and making up such lies about her. The fact that they’re so scared of her proves that she is strong.