[CharlesWayneCT]

I agree with you on that. “blood libel” is not an anti-semitic statement. Blood libel is the term used for anti-semitic actions.

Which is where I think Palin runs into trouble; it’s not that it makes her anti-semitic; it’s that the term refers to false attacks against jewish religious belief and practice, and to use it to describe an opportunistic political attack seems “off”.

Is Palin saying that the left is making the false accusations as the first step of rounding up right-wingers and sending us to death camps?

I understand her frustration — I’m frustrated too. It seems the height of inappropriate political speech to accuse your opponents of complicity in murder, simply to score political points.

But I would never describe that act as “blood libel”; it seems an over-the-top attack on speech to do so, like the left calling people “racists”, or the attack on people who use the word “retarded” in political speech.

To many jews, “blood libel” meant death. None of us are dying here because the left is playing politics with the language. What the left is doing is hateful, and beneath civility. They are accusing us of desiring, or provoking, a violent attack that killed people.

But we shouldn’t respond by accusing them using a term that suggests their speech is going to lead to violent attacks on people. Which is what “blood libel” implies.

I’ve been trying to think of a bood term to use instead. Blood sport isn’t it — that refers more to attacks that are harsh and personal, that would “draw blood” if we were talking physical combat.

I think “libelous” itself was a good word to use, because these are false accusations. And I see how “blood libel” gets chosen, because “blood libel” was a false accusation that someone killed someone else; but since the “blood libel” was that the person actually killed someone, and for their own purposes, it doesn’t apply to what the left is accusing US of.

We are being accused of being unwilling accomplices to murder and violence because we aren’t being careful enough with our words.

Sometimes, serious ideas can’t be reduced to two-word sound-bites. I’m guessing that’s what the use of “blood libel” was — a failed attempt to take that well-known phrase and re-appropriate it to gain sympathy.

But it isn’t working, and it was doomed to fail from the start.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

Personally, I would have had a hard time not using profanity. I mean top notch high quality profanity.

They have making the charge that she is responsible for murder. Come on. Snap out of the political correctless.

[Jess79]

But we shouldn’t respond by accusing them using a term that suggests their speech is going to lead to violent attacks on people. Which is what “blood libel” implies.

I think this is exactly where it is leading. Do you honestly believe that Sarah Palin is going to be able to go out into public now without increased security? Have you seen the death threats against her on Twitter? The MSM has been libeling her for days with accusations of murder and the moonbats on the left believe them.

[Scotswife]

“Sometimes, serious ideas can’t be reduced to two-word sound-bites. I’m guessing that’s what the use of “blood libel” was — a failed attempt to take that well-known phrase and re-appropriate it to gain sympathy.”

I think you nailed it as to why I’m a little uneasy with her use of this term.

I’d like to think she crafted this speech like most do -with the aide of a staff.
I don’t expect one person to always understand the history of every term or figure of speech - but with the aide of a competent staff you would think this topic would have come up?
And you would think the fact that the primary target here is jewish would have come up as well?
Which would have caused most people to pause and reconsider.

[fluffdaddy]

“But it isn’t working, and it was doomed to fail from the start.”

I'd say its a tad early for that statement and I very much doubt even you believe it. You and others seem to find the power of Palin’s words threatening. Your reaction to Sarah's speech strongly suggests you believe the exact reverse of what you claim to believe — that the speech will work very well indeed and help propel Palin into a dominant position in the 2012 nominating contest. My guess is that this speech in general and the phrase “blood libel” in particular will mark a milestone in here ascent to such a position. A large number of people who did not previously consider her presidential material will start to reconsider and her upward trajectory will get steeper.

Time will tell. Let's revisit the discussion in about six months.