Skip to comments.Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel': Judaism rejects collective responsibility for murder
Posted on 01/13/2011 4:00:39 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The term "blood libel"which Sarah Palin invoked this week to describe the suggestions by journalists and politicians that conservative figures like herself are responsible for last weekend's shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.is fraught with perilous meaning in Jewish history.
The term connotes the earliest accusations that Jews killed Jesus and enthusiastically embraced responsibility for his murder, telling Pontius Pilate, "His blood be upon us and our children" (Matthew 27:25). Thus was born the legend of Jewish bloodlust and of Hebrew ritual use of Christian blood for sacramental purposes. The term was later used more specifically to describe accusations against Jewsprimarily in Europeof sacrificing kidnapped Christian children to use their blood in the baking of Passover matzos.
The Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth is generally credited with having popularized the blood libel in his "Life of the Martyr William from Norwich," written in 1173 about a young boy who was found stabbed to death. Thomas quoted a servant woman who said she witnessed Jews lacerating the boy's head with thorns, crucifying him, and piercing his side. While William was canonized, the Jews of Norwich fared less well. On Feb. 6, 1190, they were all found slaughtered in their homes, save those who escaped to the local tower and committed mass suicide.
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Especially knowing you're always going to be two or three lies behind them.
My local Newspaper, the Daily Republic, isn’t running too many Stories about the Tucson tragedy. They don’t like my criticism of Obama and the liberal contingent in the comment section. I get too much ammunition (can I use that word) from Free Republic and Liberty Post to sling at liberals there. I posted there today about Obama’s pep rally and compared it to the Nuremberg rally. Boo hoo, local newspaper! Grow a skin!
It predates Christianity.
Funny so far I see Jews defending her on this and a bunch of people who aren’t even Jewish acting all indignant about it.
that’s their entire M.O.
a) "blood libel" only applies to libels against Jews, and cannot be applied to other libels, and
b) Sarah Palin crossed a line of moral offense (of course she did) by appropriating the term and applying it to what media liberals are doing with their campaign of personal destruction, in trying to pin the murders on her.
Jews don’t own words any more than blacks own words.
Intellectual and theological honesty, especially in this week’s atmosphere of left-wing insanity, is refreshing . . . and reassuring. I don’t know about his politics, but any Jew, especially a Rabbi, who publicly states a position in support of a political conservative deserves praise for his or her bravery.
The notion of individual responsibility comes from Ezekiel.
Before that, Jews used to believe when one individual went astray, the entire nation was held responsible.
The Democrats want to resurrect that ancient view. I don’t believe the innocent should be punished along with the guilty. It isn’t fair, it isn’t justice and that’s not America.
These liberals must be OUTRAGED that Denzel Washington kept correcting people in “Crimson Tide” when he emphasized “nuclear HOLOCAUST!”
You don’t mess with the Rebbe Boteach,
he is unafraid.
Maybe it will be the law of unintended consequences.
Maybe all these smears against Gov. Palin will backfire.
I think the point is that the term blood libel has metaphorically broadened since thousands and thousands of years ago.
I’ve hear the term blood libel used in exactly the way Palin used it for the last 40 years. Its nothing new.
And if it was new, so what. Is there a new rule in the English language that we can’t use analogous phrases?
Media say Obama good, Palin bad. Some people still believe what media say. More people can think without media telling them how to think, with their manipulative rants.
Media trust is being destroyed.
Yep. It’s that same collective guilt theory that underlies reparations, too.
Interesting. Can you explain ?
marked for reading later