Yep. That's what I said in my post you replied to: "Blood libel, OTOH, has a very precise, historical definition. Blood libel historically has to do with claims of Jews, and later Christians and others, using a child's blood for their own religious beliefs. The Romans also accused Christians of using a child's blood in their communion ceremony.
But that's what I meant when I wrote the term's meaning has been deluded over time, and now often means something different. It was this contemporary use that Sarah Palin took advantage of.
Now that right there makes a truly major change in what you wanted to say.
The accusation of the practice derives from an older piece of propaganda that the enemy nation's adults don't love their children like we do ~ therefore, imagine how brutal they'll be to our kids ~ so fight for king, country and the chillun'.
This has gotta' go back to probably the last Interglacial over 100,000 years ago.
Hansel and Gretle go into the woods and are found by the wicked witch who wants to bake them into cookies.
That gets us into the area of the more modern definition ~ to wit, the Leftwingtards are telling us that Sarah Palin is so evil she would act through a madman to kill a 9 year old little girl just to make a political point.
It's a blood libel on her to make that charge.
It also invites true believers on the other side to murder Sarah!
My point was the "Jewish" part isn't all that precise and is not necessary to an understanding of the practice of using "blood libel".
I think we should turn our attention to what should be done to people who use that particular libel?
Maybe we should punish them the same way we do others who fire up a mob to incite them to murder.