Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’

New York Times ^ | January 12, 2011 | MICHAEL D. SHEAR

[reaganaut1]

Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, on Wednesday issued a forceful denunciation of her critics in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with crosshairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Gabrielle Giffords, had increasingly become the symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In and interview with The Caucus on Monday, potential 2012 rival Tim Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.

But in the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, casting it as a broader indictment of the basic political rights of free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.

She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona “begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state.”

“Not with those who listen to talk radio,” she added. “Not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle. Not with law abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their first amendment rights at campaign rallies. Not with those who proudly voted in the last election.”

[okie01]

Those on this board who object to 'blood libel' have but one reason for objecting.

They also object to Sarah Palin. Usually for reasons that cannot be convincingly articulated.

Fact is, 'blood libel' is having the same effect as 'death panels'. It is unhinging the left...and stiffening the resolve of most on the right...because it is true.

And, if it is true, how can it possibly be "inappropriate"?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I included that because it was a point in your favor. But wikipedia’s use of the term was simply to indicate that on occasion, the charges of murdering children for their blood was leveled against people who were not jewish, not to suggest that the term had another use that was somewhat common that didn’t include jews.

The phrase ‘always’ would rarely be correct if taken literally, and therefore should be interpreted in most cases as a virtual or predominant statement. After all, Palin just used “blood libel”, and not against jews, so it obviously isn’t “always” used against jews.

But it’s use is virtually always to discuss jews being persecuted by other faiths through the false accusation that they were killing children. That a few instances exist of others being so falsely accused doesn’t really change that, nor is there any evidence that the term has EVER been used as a common way of describing the general false accusations that a group has contributed to a culture of violence.

Which may NOT have been your argument, but without such an argument, the wtc911 argument is largely unscathed by pointing out that the use of “always” was imprecise.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“”If she had simply written “libel”, the likely response would have been snarky comments about her ignorance of libel laws. Really, she shouldn’t have to walk on eggshells with her choice of words. Her point was clear, especially the context within which it was written.””

_____

Well stated.

The American public also sees the leftist media and politicians are engaging in blood libel. CBS conducted a poll and even a majority of the Democrats see this leftist vitriol as blood libel.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

The term blood libel has always been a clear indictment of Jews by Christians

I didn't know that. In fact, Jews are last thing on my mind when I hear that term. But then I don't indict Jews and don't hang around with those who do.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Here is a good sign that she is losing the argument on the use of the term.

Why Sarah Palin's use of 'blood libel' is a great thing

On the other hand, Sarah Palin is such an important political and cultural figure that her use of the term "blood libel" should introduce this very important historical phenomenon to a wide audience, and the ensuing discussion -- about how Fox News is not actually Mendel Beilis -- will serve to enlighten and inform.
...
I mean it sincerely when I say I hope Sarah Palin, who regularly expresses love for Jews and Israel, takes the time to learn about the history of the blood libel, and shares what she has learned with her many admirers.

The author says that by mis-using the term, it might remind Christians of our history of murdering jews, and that would be a good thing.

[Happy Rain]

From the blog,”Feminist Critics”

The Feminist Blood-Libel Against Men

Mar.23rd,2007 by Daran.

There are many more if those with PDS wanted to do a little research.

[rcrngroup]

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

I think this is a very appropriate term & analogy to use, especially with the dimturds & their liberal partisan media hacks saying everything they can to throw more gasoline on the angry vitriol & rhetoric that libturds do constantly and hypocritically accuse conservatives of this.

Case in point is ex-Representative dimturd Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., pens an op-ed in the New York Times today in which he calls for civility, yet on Oct 23 he declared "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him".

I think Republicans should just be hammering the dimturds & the media with this type of angry rhetoric & threats used pretty much exclusively by the left.

[sport]

Mark 141 for later.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Since I think I'm a little too "harsh" on the use of the term blood libel, I'll throw in this link to a blog that I believe makes a pretty good case for the use of the term "blood libel", which I believe was posted BEFORE Sarah used the term.

Those looking for good arguments for the word, as well as a better way I think to have introduced the word, should read this blog. I'll quote only a small part.

Blood Libel:

To blame conservatives for the actions of an individual who has been described by his school acquaintances as either an apolitical pothead or a left-wing pothead is the worst kind of dishonesty. In fact, it bears a remarkable similarity to the “blood libel” that has for centuries been a staple of anti-Semitism. The truth or even plausibility of the charge seems irrelevant — the charge seems presumed true from the “fact” that conservatives are just bad people. Their reasoning is ultimately circular — conservatives are bad people, therefore they are responsible for the Tucson attack, therefore that proves what horrible people they are. This is bigotry, not analysis.

By using the phrase "bears a remarkable similarity", the author can invoke the emotion of the phrase, draw a parallel, and introduce the analogy without appropriating the phrase or suggesting equivalence in degree.

So if Palin had simply said "remarkably similar to blood libel", rather than just using the word, I do think she would have avoided a good deal of criticism.

[FreedomForce]

I agree. Call a left-winger a socialist and they’ll roll their eyes, call them a communist and they’ll yawn, call them a fascist and they’ll turn purple and make gurgling noises.

[roses of sharon]

FR's MSM water-boys just can't help themselves...sue Sarah, sue!

[shutterspeed]

se_ohio_young_conservative said : It is libel. With or without the word blood next to it. What the media is doing is LIBEL in every sense of the word. Do you know where the blood comes in ? Picture a 9 year old girl laying on the ground bleeding to death with her pupils dilated. that is blood alright. it is blood and its libel. she was right

I agree with you - her use of the language and remastering it to this contemorary event is SPOT ON. She is taking the fight right back to the Media of which so many are frightened and see as an inpenetrable force. She's fighting the Long-Game - not just the news-cycle game. She's impacting our language; she is defining the opposition in a way they never thought they would be defined. By using the dead body of a young girl to persecute a group of people - the professional left have been correctly and quite succinctly defined and placed among the historically evil.

With two very well placed and historically significant words - she is reshaping the battlefield of ideas.

In the short-term the MSM and Professional left will mock her use of a Jewish term and pretend to understand what she is really saying. They will hope that the pubile fails to it's deeper meaning and hope that it's intent does not stick.

This woman is drawing outside the line folks - that is actually quite exciting - kudos to her.

[magritte]

Hey Charles...you can find any support for this usage for "blood libel" because there isn't any...Palin has tried to "split the meaning." and create her own version of the phrase. She uses the part of the definition that includes false and sensational allegations. Instead of thinking of it in terms of "human sacrifices", which is the crux of the "blood" part of the term, she is turning it to mean "murder." Then, of course, she ignores the harshest part of the phrase, which is the cannibalism component, instead implying that the libel is she is somehow complicit in the murder.

It's awkwardly handled, but may be effective to those who aren't familiar with the real usage of the phrase...magritte

[r9etb]

But if you notice, the media story is no longer a ‘TEA party and Palin caused the shootings’.

Only because it doesn't need to be that any longer -- for those who would be affected by it, they've already succeeded in setting that bit. Now it's on to something else -- the "blood libel" accusation serves to confirm existing prejudices about Palin.

She’s knocked them off-message in just one speech.

That's where you're wrong. This little flap actually helps them with their overall "message" about Sarah Palin. The media "opinion-shapers" want to paint Sarah Palin as a shallow, irresponsible person whose political pretensions pose a threat to the country.

"Blood libel" helps them to do that.

And just a note: for all the discussion on this thread about what the term actually means, I think most folks' first impression of the term is similar to mine: that the media have committed a libel that demands blood as repayment. That really does sound unhinged.

[agere_contra]

‘Blood Libel’ is a brilliantly accurate definition of the Left’s inflammatory and hate-filled rhetoric over the Tucson murders.

Also: the Left really, truly does want Palin dead: political assassination and even mass murder have been the hallmarks of the Left since Robespierre. Whenever the Left can kill or imprison their political opponents then they do so. That’s what the Left is: raw immoral power with a acceptable facade.

They don’t just want her murdered of course: some of the Left have openly called for Palin to be raped by black people. This is because the Left are unhinged sociopaths who worship power and license.

Have you been living in a cave that you do not know these things?

I notice that you couldn’t answer MrB, preferring instead to shriek abuse at him. Are you sure you’re on the right forum?

[anglian]

The Campaign Spot

The Term ‘Blood Libel’: More Common Than You Might Think

January 12, 2011 9:51 A.M. By Jim Geraghty

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think

[Political Junkie Too]

Perhaps the term she was thinking of was "blood feud" instead of "blood libel," that is, a long-running feud between clans, groups, or families, often involving murdering each other.

I've often thought of blood feuds as when the descendents of one side continue fighting the descendents of the other side long after the original people involved in the dispute have passed on.

In this case, the constant left/right sniping (did I say that?) is a blood feud.

-PJ

[r9etb]

I suggest you do a google search for "2010 election results".

I suggest you look up Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Dan Maes, Carl Paladino... just to name a few.

[Liberty Valance]

Gov Palin’s statement was well thought out and illustrates her empathy for the victims of this horrific tagedy. I also note that the truth of this ‘blood libel’ puts her detractors off their game and they can only scream their disapproval. The truth hurts. The truth is that a deranged nut killed six people in Arizona including a precious 9 year old girl and a Federal Judge. He also wounded many others including a Congressman whom we all have praying for. To Blame Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement for this is indeed blood libel.

Regards,

Liberty