Posted on 01/12/2011 10:51:31 AM PST by markomalley
Several Jewish groups are criticizing Sarah Palin's use of the controversial term "blood libel" in her video statement on the Arizona shootings. The phrase has traditionally been used to refer to anti-Semitic and false myths about Jews using the blood of Christians, often children, in their rituals.
It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.
It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Â Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.
Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase "blood-libel" in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term "blood-libel" has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.
The National Jewish Democratic Council, a group of Jewish Democrats, said:
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, someone get them a blankie and binky
LOL, the last thing liberal Jews are worried about is the American people DAILY, HOURLY, being accused of murder.
They don’t even care about Jews being accused of murder...for decades.
The ADL is useless.
Sarah is a master of using words and phrases that send the left into orbit. Death panels and blood libels are only the beginning if the lefties don’t shape up and act responsibly.
You know the left has lost when Alan Dershowitz defends Sarah Palin
Hey Zach...shut up.
They all voted for the muslim - screw them. They hate Christians anyway - biggest bigots going. They are fond of the term “schwarzers” too.
I seem to remember a book involving limiting and reducing the vocabulary in order to limit thought.
'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,'-1984 Part 1, Chapter 5
Simple truths are a universal concept. They are not reserved for certain groups.
Hey, whiny "special interest" people...we don't care what offends you.
Suck it up.
Abe Foxman is AGAINST Geert Wilders. Some of Wilders biggest supporters in the USA are conservative Jews like - Pam Yellen, Savage and Joyce Kaufman. Pam is a awesome.
Foxman is a POS.
Foxman admits the term's common usage in the English language, so what's the problem here? We all know the answer -- Sarah Palin is the problem (for them). It's personal. If a lib-Dem had used the same term in reference to someone who's been falsely accused, Foxman and Co. wouldn't have said a damn thing about it.
From Dictionary.com’s encyclopedia section:
Blood libels are sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children.
Some of the best documented cases of blood libel focus upon accusations against Jews, but many other groups have been accused throughout history, including Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Mormons, neopagans, Native Americans, atheists and communists.
This jewish group is WRONG.
Abe wants a Jewish monopoly on the term, but only the right kind of Jews ~ I’m sure he’d send the Lubovitch on their way should they dare cross the line and try to snatch that term out of his mouth.
Historically, Jews were scapegoats. In the context of the shooting story, Palin was a scapegoat. “Blood libel” works quite well on multiple levels.
The problem here is not with the use of the term in its present context, but with the term’s historic context. Many have used this term in contemporary thought, yet out of context with its historic meaning.
Yet it’s the historic context that those who will defame Sarah Palin will cling to. Could she have used some less “charged” term? Probably. Would it have prevented further attacks? Doubtful. Those who hate her, or fear her, will find any excuse. However, the one problem I see of her use of “blood libel” is that it takes the debate away from what she said to the term itself. And that’s too bad. She was spot on.
Well maybe he has a point.
Perhaps she could have made a better choice of words to describe the Tuscon Holocaust
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.