Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Sarah Palin's "blood libel" invocation
Some political partisans and pundits sought to link the tragic events of Tucson to the acts of their political opponents - in particular Sarah Palin who had identified Rep. Giffords' district as a "target" for action in the last election.
Sarah Palin has today responded to these attacks on her with a video in which she characterizes the attacks as a "blood libel."
My friend Jeffrey Goldberg, in his typically thoughtful and contrarian manner, suggests that while unfortunate, Ms. Palin's use of this term may be useful in educating many who are unfamiliar with the history of blood libels - and their legacy in relations between peoples and faiths and nations today. My friend Brad Hirschfield does much the same.
Those are generous perspectives by Jeffrey and Brad and very appropriate for the generosity of spirit such tragic moments require for our social fabric to be strengthened.
But what is troubling is that Ms. Palin's statement - and her invocation of the term "blood libel" is neither generous nor accurate.
Those who sought to slur Ms. Palin by connecting her to the Tucson attacks were engaging in baseless allegations for base ends.
Ms. Palin, while properly in my view seeing herself as a victim, invokes a historic term which by its terms accuses her opponents of deploying such libelous accusations so that her very life would be threatened.
I am not offended by Ms. Palin's resort to this response, I think her to be a friend of Israel and the Jewish people. But to my ears, her response keeps our political and civic discourse in the gutter. It does not try to lead Americans to a better place, which might offer the most modest measure of comfort that the victims in Tucson did not die and suffer completely in vain.
By
Nathan Diament
|
January 12, 2011; 12:36 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: We must be repelled by violence |
Next: Israeli Arabs: A challenge to Israel' s democracy
Posted by: jennas27 | January 13, 2011 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The actual terminology of "blood libel":
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Blood_libel
"...allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice, and uses their blood in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children.
"Many different groups have been accused,
including Canaanites, Jews, Christians, Cathars, Knights Templar, Witches, Christian heretics, Roman Catholics, Roma, Wiccans, Druids, neopagans, Satanic cultists, and evangelical Protestant missionaries."
In other words, more than one group has been falsely accused. Thus the reason why progressive liberals and the major mass media have now decided to gripe about this term...only shows their hatred for getting
caught "red-handed" in slander.
Sarah Palin as well as the Tea Party, Republicans, and Conservatives in general were falsely accused of having a hand in helping the shooter in some way in Tuscan. It didn't matter there was no facts or evidence to support this before the reports were made. They were already being unjustly targeted and blamed.
Jews haven't been the only group in all humanity to have been persecuted by another group for whatever reason. All groups at some time, at some place, have been victimized by another. Jews have no personal ownership to to the hardships one group of humans placed on a second group simply because of differences.
Palin was using a metaphor to describe the unwarranted and uncalled for hatred that has been spewed by those who would take a tragedy and use it for their own ends.
Considering all that as been thrust her way by the major mass media and liberal progressives I personally wonder how she muddles through.