[wtc911]

From zionism-israel.com...

"Blood Libel - The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various "medicinal" purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions. It is one of the central fables of Anti-Semitism".

The ADL site offers similar definitions.

Yet you say that the exact opposite is true, that blood libel is a term to describe anti-semites....I just don't know whom to believe, Jewish historians or some anonymous internet knuckle-dragger...decisions, decisions.

[allmendream]

Wow, you still persist in your ignorance.

Blood libel is a false accusation. Libel is false by definition. Blood libel is a term used by reasonable people to describe what anti-Semites do and believe, it is NOT a term used by anti-Semites to describe what they are accusing the Jewish people of.

Now if I were trying to drum up hatred against the Tea Party, why would I NOT want to call what I was doing “Tea Party libel”?

Take your time in answering, I will wait........

[Chunga]

The false charge is the libel.
The libel is employed by some anti-Semites.
These anti-Semites are the libelers.
"Blood libel" is the false charge employed by anti-Semites espousing the libel.
Blood libel cannot be used to describe Jews or any Jewish practice, because it isn't true.
"Blood libel" is a term encapsulating a belief some anti-Semites hold about a practice in which Jewish people do not engage.
Anti-Semites espousing this belief are the "blood libelers."
The term points to the anti-Semites, not the Jewish people.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand the term.


Good luck.