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 ...
Foxy defended kapo soRos. ‘nuff said. I am Chabad, BTW. And I use the term quite often against the ADL. Blood against blood. Context is everything.
How many times do I have to post this:
During the first and second centuries, some Roman commentators misunderstood the ritual of the Eucharist and related teachings. While celebrating the Eucharist, Christians drink red wine in response to the words “This is the blood of Christ”. Propaganda arguing that the Christians literally drank blood was written and used to persecute Christians. Romans were highly suspicious of Christian adoptions of abandoned Roman babies and this was suggested as a possible source of the blood. In the Mandaean scripture, the Ginza Rba, a purportedly Christian group called the “Minunei” are accused of it against the Jews: “They kill a Jewish child, they take his blood, they cook it in bread and they proffer it to them as food.” (Ginza Rba 9.1).
For the moment.
The same could have been said about her using the term "death panels." Everyone got focused on the term, but over time it encapsulated the idea in a term everyone understood.
For the moment, using term "blood libel" will focus on the use of the term. But it does such a good job of encapsulating what the left does that it will be a solid term in our retorical arsenal.
For far too long, the left has been able to (without any consequences) accuse the right of every vile act. From racism to wanting people to die. This term, blood libel, sums up their strategy perfectly.
Find a way to send those pictures and your comment to Abe. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think Abe is language challenged.
It was an analogy. She could reasonably use it as an analogy. We know that liberals hate Palin, so why should we take these views as objective?
I am Chabad
Yehsar koach
Happens all the time ~ interesting that modern Jewish writers don't complain about it.
Hitler had a different outcome in mind.
Very good ~ I’d thought maybe it went all the way back to Passover’s origins. Maybe not quite, but there it is.
Wow! Your comment just gave me an epiphany. Sarah is the scapegoat. She has been the scapegoat since she appeared on the national scene. She so shines with Christian goodness it drives the sinners crazy. so, they try to dump all of their sins on her and send her out into the wilderness in order to be forgiven for at least a short while. That explains why she is attacked about everything she does. When almost half the nation individually are projecting their individual sins onto her, there is no way she can ever be innocent in their eyes. She stirs the same reactions in people that Jesus stirred in them. Finally, it makes sense to me why she is so feared, and it scares the c..p out of me.
“Has hell frozen? Pigs flying? Dershowitz coming to Palin’s defense?? Holy crap!!”
Even though I don’t care for him, it’s not surprising. He is definitely not your typical liberal Jew.
Yup!
Me thinks they dost protest too much.
...or...
The dog that got hit, yelps the loudest.
“The origin of the blood libel can be traced back to the Graeco-Egyptian author Apion, who claimed that Jews sacrificed Greek victims in their temple. Apion repeated anti-Jewish slurs and “absurd calumnies” first made by Posidonius and Apollonius Molon in the 1st century BCE.”
This is the earliest I can find. Probably started with the cavemen.
Was that picture taken when she supposedly wasn’t pregnant with Trig?
Egads. Type in “palin trig” at google....
As long as I can correct the typos!
When they came for the Conservatives, we did nothing, because we weren’t Conservatives. —Liberal Jews, January 12, 2011
They will only hate him more.
Interestingly enough the WarshPost did a piece on it with various opinions and they cited and quoted Jonah, but they didn't quote the piece he wants them to read.
I think we are a new cadre of Christian and Jewish missionaries of a type not originally envisioned by the organized religion crowd.
That thought sends a chill down my spine ~ 'cause I know what the cannibal kings do to the missionaries.
These communists on the left are going to spark a CW.
Your point may become true, but there is a discrete difference between “blood libel” and “death panels”. Death panels was/is coined to define a portion of the new healthcare law. Blood libel, OTOH, has a very precise, historical definition. One that has been deluded over time, but nonetheless precise.
The problem with the term is that it doesn’t encapsulate what the left does in its original definition. Therein lies the potential problem. Am I upset with Sarah for what she said? Absolutely not. Am I concerned about the use of that particular term overshadowing the proper debate? Yes. If it doesn’t that remains to be seen.
I think the term “libel” in-and-of-itself may well have been used in context to great effect.
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.