I’m not Jewish and I felt blood libeled even before there was any mention of the term in the media.
The people who were really blood libeled often ended up dead or in prison, and many were sent off to gas chambers.
It’s like using the word slavery to describe some minor inconvenience of government; you might feel like you are enslaved, but to those who experienced slavery, your attempts to equate your plight with theirs will seem shallow and self-serving. (Yes, I know that these days there aren’t people around who have esperienced slavery, so it’s not a perfect analogy).
This is like how the blacks get upset when gay people try to claim that they are as oppressed as blacks were, and deserve the same corrective treatment. Blacks who actually went through segregation, fear for their lives, being treated as second-class citizens, being denied work, being pushed to the back of the bus, all simply for what they LOOKED like, resent gay people trying to claim equal victimhood.
What the left is trying to do to the right is absurd, and uncivil, and reprehensible. False accusations that we contributed to murder, with all evidence pointing elsewhere, is beneath contempt. But we aren’t in danger of being rounded up and sent to death camps. At worst, one or two people might have their chances at getting elected President damaged, and their reputations sullied. That’s bad, but it’s hardly the same as what Jews experienced in Europe when they were being “blood libeled”.
Sometimes it’s best NOT to try to take other group’s specific oppressions, and use their words to describe your own sufferings. It suggests an equality that will most likely turn people’s sympathies AGAINST you.
Frankly, we had WON this battle already. Most americans rejected the claim, and we were getting sympathy. I think the left can easily spin the use of the term “blood libel” and remove most of that sympathy.