[onyx]

Dershowitz defends Palin use of term ‘blood libel’

“The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”

[mancini]

Thank you, Alan Dershowitz. I have never found Sarah Palin to use words frivolously. Now can we just move on from this.

[SnakeDoctor]

When Alan Dershowitz can be counted among the voices of reason, something has gone wrong.

SnakeDoc

[seowulf]

The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse.

Even not considering the "broad, metaphorical meaning" and focusing on the literal meaning of blood libel which led to pogroms and killings, the term 'blood libel' is accurate because it seems that those who are libeling conservatives and conservative broadcasters would not be necessarily unhappy if they incited violence against the right.

Should we only use the term 'blood libel' after the murders have happened, or should we use it if we believe we have started on a path to violence?

It we say some actions are fascistic, it does not mean we are living in a fascist society but if government keeps doing fascistic things, it won't be long before society is fascist.

Likewise, the libel may not now be calling for literal blood but it certainly could put us on that path.