Replies

· “Blood libel” was not a phrase used by anti-Semites; it was a term used to describe the ACTIONS of anti-Semites, ascribing group guilt and sinister motivation to a fictitious crime. Please try to follow, “libel” is a falsehood, one does not usually say that they are engaged in libel when ginning up hate against a group. Do you understand that? The “abysmal lack of knowledge” seems to be on YOUR part. If Palin is a “perceived anti-Semite” then the person with the supposed perception is absolutely deluded and as confused and ignorant as you are.

This is the problem when some people cannot separate their religion from politics. They apply the same lack of logic and reason which is essential for belief to their politics and in their mind the two become inseparable.

Name calling and hatred is not a substitute for fact.

You obviously think you know more than the Jewish groups listed below - delusion is not a good thing in discussions or politics.

A NAZI POSTER

… the lie that Jews used the blood of Christian babies to bake Passover Matzoahs,.

Palin is not Jewish - she is not the victim, Gabrielle Giffords, is the victim and is Jewish.

the president of the pro-Israel, pro-peace Jewish lobby J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, said he was “saddened by Governor Palin’s use of the term ‘blood libel,’” adding that he hopes “she will choose to retract her comment AND apologize“:

Jewish groups are taking offense to Palin’s choice of the term. Noting that accusations of blood libel have been “directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries,” the National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Palin’s use of the term:

This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today. <...>

****** We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term “blood libel” brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.

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 of the older (middle ages) type. The blood libel is a phenomenon of medieval and modern Christian anti-Semitism, but spread to the Middle East as early as 1775, when there was a blood libel in Hebron. A second blood libel occurred in Damascus in 1840 and one occurred in Cyprus in the same year. As the blood libel was the subject of folk ballads and literature, it was not simply a religious superstition in Europe, but a staple of popular culture, like most anti-Semitic prejudices.

Blood libels in the both the West and the East were generally occasions for large-scale persecution and judicial murders of Jews, as well as the basis for expulsions and pogroms. There have been about 150 cases of blood libel that were actually tried by Catholic authorities, and many other rumored cases that never came to trial.

The enduring nature of the blood libel is one of its most remarkable features. It was an invention of the pagans. It was revived and exploited in medieval Christian superstition, later promoted deliberately by the counter-reformation and the Inquisition, By the 19th century, much of the "old" anti-Semitism of the medieval period had passed from the world, but the libel persisted. It has been transplanted to the United States and the belief flourishes in Muslim countries as well. Investigations, instigations and enforcement had been transferred in part from the Roman Catholic Church to lay authorities: Tsarist police, Polish police and even New York State Troopers.

What you or I think is immaterial - what the people outside of this forum think will be the deciding factor.

My religion has nothing to do with it at all, and it is rather strange of you to suggest it does.

I do not claim to know more than the Jewish groups you list, because they say the same thing I have said.

“Blood libel” is the activity Muslims and Nazis and many other anti-Semites engage in.

THEY do not call it that. Because to call something libel is to call it false.

Do you understand that?

This is not a phrase used by anti-Semites, it is a phrase, used often by Jews, to describe the bizarre accusations of anti-Semites.

Listing and re-listing what blood libel is, and how bizarre the accusation is, doesn't change that Anti-semites do not and WOULD NOT call it “libel”.

Do you understand that simple point, or do I have to break it down into a more simple formulation for you?

When I say that Reasonable people (and Jewish groups) describe the bizarre accusations of anti-semites as being “the blood libel”, YOU providing quotes from Jewish sources describing the blood libel doesn't prove that anti-Semites use that phrase.

That should be obvious, even to you.

Now please explain to me why an anti-Semite would call it “the blood libel”, instead of “what the Jews do with the blood of Christian babies” or whatever?

Do you know what “libel” means?