I had this discussion yesterday with my sister who is married to a non-observant Jewish man. She said they were deeply offended by Palin’s use of the term because it was about Jews. Honestly, I didn’t know it was off limits, as I’ve heard it in other contexts, not related to Jews. She said it was like say the “n” word to blacks. I found the article by Alan Dershowitz saying it’s not exclusive. She didn’t care and went on a victim rant.
I know about the history of the word, but have not been able to locate any copyright or trademark on them. It’s just another excuse to attack Sarah Palin. She used the words in EXACTLY the right context.
And, as my husband said, GET OVER IT!
“Blood libel” refers to Jews killing, eating and sucking the blood of children in 12th century Spain. The charges were all lies, of course.
When you say Palin used the term in “EXACTLY the right context,” are you saying someone accused her of killing, eating, and sucking the blood of a child? Because that’s the only “correct context” for the term. Those who’ve used it differently over the past few weeks are simply ignorant of its history. Ignorance is commonplace in many quarters of society, but a dangerous failing in a leader, which is why Palin’s willingness to speak a term of which she is ignorant is so troubling.
Bottom line—Sarah’s not backing down and it’s driving the Left nuts.