Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

REUTERS
Reuters US Online Report Domestic News

Jan 12, 2011 09:00 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prominent Republican Sarah Palin on Wednesday accused critics of "blood libel" by blaming her rhetoric for contributing to the shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six and wounded 14, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," the conservative Tea Party favorite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.

"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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]

The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints.[citation needed]

In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it.[7] These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time, and recently Muslims as well.

GannonFan wrote:Seriously, I don't think most people, outside of Palin-philes, really think she's terribly bright. She picked a phrase that does in an inelegant way refer to falsely blaming someone for a death, so although it was an awkward way to say it, it's not incorrect.

But it's a whole other matter to take a poorly worded phrase and try to attach a whole host of other meanings to it, as KY is doing here. Seriously, what is the left's maniacal fascination with this woman? From the initial blaming of her and her crosshair map for this tragedy (largely proven to be false as the whacko who committed this tragedy may not even have known a thing about Palin) to now accusing her of in a twisted way being anti-Semitic (which she may be, who knows, but you can't tell from this) is just really sad and silly. She's not going to be the Republican nominee - let it go. She's going to be involved and she may be a king-maker of sorts, but she won't be on the ticket. There are plenty of other things worth worrying about in this world than trumped up ideas of how evil Sarah Palin is. Just saying.

GannonFan wrote:Seriously, I don't think most people, outside of Palin-philes, really think she's terribly bright. She picked a phrase that does in an inelegant way refer to falsely blaming someone for a death, so although it was an awkward way to say it, it's not incorrect.

But it's a whole other matter to take a poorly worded phrase and try to attach a whole host of other meanings to it, as KY is doing here. Seriously, what is the left's maniacal fascination with this woman? From the initial blaming of her and her crosshair map for this tragedy (largely proven to be false as the whacko who committed this tragedy may not even have known a thing about Palin) to now accusing her of in a twisted way being anti-Semitic (which she may be, who knows, but you can't tell from this) is just really sad and silly. She's not going to be the Republican nominee - let it go. She's going to be involved and she may be a king-maker of sorts, but she won't be on the ticket. There are plenty of other things worth worrying about in this world than trumped up ideas of how evil Sarah Palin is. Just saying.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Even normally conservative jews and jewish organizations are coming out against it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Even normally conservative jews and jewish organizations are coming out against it.

GannonFan wrote:Seriously, I don't think most people, outside of Palin-philes, really think she's terribly bright. She picked a phrase that does in an inelegant way refer to falsely blaming someone for a death, so although it was an awkward way to say it, it's not incorrect.

But it's a whole other matter to take a poorly worded phrase and try to attach a whole host of other meanings to it, as KY is doing here. Seriously, what is the left's maniacal fascination with this woman? From the initial blaming of her and her crosshair map for this tragedy (largely proven to be false as the whacko who committed this tragedy may not even have known a thing about Palin) to now accusing her of in a twisted way being anti-Semitic (which she may be, who knows, but you can't tell from this) is just really sad and silly. She's not going to be the Republican nominee - let it go. She's going to be involved and she may be a king-maker of sorts, but she won't be on the ticket. There are plenty of other things worth worrying about in this world than trumped up ideas of how evil Sarah Palin is. Just saying.

houndawg wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Seriously, I don't think most people, outside of Palin-philes, really think she's terribly bright. She picked a phrase that does in an inelegant way refer to falsely blaming someone for a death, so although it was an awkward way to say it, it's not incorrect.

But it's a whole other matter to take a poorly worded phrase and try to attach a whole host of other meanings to it, as KY is doing here. Seriously, what is the left's maniacal fascination with this woman? From the initial blaming of her and her crosshair map for this tragedy (largely proven to be false as the whacko who committed this tragedy may not even have known a thing about Palin) to now accusing her of in a twisted way being anti-Semitic (which she may be, who knows, but you can't tell from this) is just really sad and silly. She's not going to be the Republican nominee - let it go. She's going to be involved and she may be a king-maker of sorts, but she won't be on the ticket. There are plenty of other things worth worrying about in this world than trumped up ideas of how evil Sarah Palin is. Just saying.

I refuse to give up hope.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Even normally conservative jews and jewish organizations are coming out against it.

Appaholic wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Even normally conservative jews and jewish organizations are coming out against it.

They raise hell everytime a gentile says "kosher" in public, so i wouldn't place too much weight on that...it's a means to an end with Jewish (as wel as other religious) organizations...

CID1990 wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
They raise hell every time a gentile says "kosher" in public, so i wouldn't place too much weight on that...it's a means to an end with Jewish (as well as other religious) organizations...

Agreed.

As for Palin's reference, I actually think it was an apt analogy.

Blood libel was the reference by which Jews would be scapegoated for a number of things, primarily missing children. The myth was that Jews needed the blood of Gentile children for the baking of their passover bread. If I child was missing, it MUST be the village Jews who abducted him for their blood libel.

Considering the immediate, shrill, and shameless way in which the left (including the predominately left leaning media) started pointing fingers at Sarah Palin, based out of their hatreds for (and fears of) her, I think that we may have seen a very rare example of where the old girl actually nailed an analogy.

native wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Agreed.

As for Palin's reference, I actually think it was an apt analogy.

Blood libel was the reference by which Jews would be scapegoated for a number of things, primarily missing children. The myth was that Jews needed the blood of Gentile children for the baking of their passover bread. If I child was missing, it MUST be the village Jews who abducted him for their blood libel.

Considering the immediate, shrill, and shameless way in which the left (including the predominately left leaning media) started pointing fingers at Sarah Palin, based out of their hatreds for (and fears of) her, I think that we may have seen a very rare example of where the old girl actually nailed an analogy.

No apologies. No excuses. She got it exactly right.

native wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Agreed.

As for Palin's reference, I actually think it was an apt analogy.

Blood libel was the reference by which Jews would be scapegoated for a number of things, primarily missing children. The myth was that Jews needed the blood of Gentile children for the baking of their passover bread. If I child was missing, it MUST be the village Jews who abducted him for their blood libel.

Considering the immediate, shrill, and shameless way in which the left (including the predominately left leaning media) started pointing fingers at Sarah Palin, based out of their hatreds for (and fears of) her, I think that we may have seen a very rare example of where the old girl actually nailed an analogy.

No apologies. No excuses. She got it exactly right.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
No apologies. No excuses. She got it exactly right.

I agree, although I think the smart thing would have been for her to say nothing at all. By responding she lowers herself into the fray.

dbackjon wrote:

At Sarah Palin, and her choir of bobble-heads on her

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I agree, although I think the smart thing would have been for her to say nothing at all. By responding she lowers herself into the fray.

But can you imagine being in the position of if you don't lower yourself into the fray 1/2 the public is trying to convince the other 1/2 that her non response to the issue implies guilt? There is no way to look good once the machine turns on and starts eating away at you.

kalm wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: But can you imagine being in the position of if you don't lower yourself into the fray 1/2 the public is trying to convince the other 1/2 that her non response to the issue implies guilt? There is no way to look good once the machine turns on and starts eating away at you.

I read a similar condemnation of her today and thought it was fairly weak. That being said, she has no one to blame but herself for the limelight. She might be unjustly accussed, but I think that falls short of her being a victim.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

kalm wrote:
I read a similar condemnation of her today and thought it was fairly weak. That being said, she has no one to blame but herself for the limelight. She might be unjustly accussed, but I think that falls short of her being a victim.

I'm not implying she's a victim. Unjustly accused is certainly moving it toward victim-hood. She has shown the light on herself and scrutiny is fair game with that but manufacturing **** ups with her is not even close to necessary.

Appaholic wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Even normally conservative jews and jewish organizations are coming out against it.

They raise hell everytime a gentile says "kosher" in public, so i wouldn't place too much weight on that...

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
No apologies. No excuses. She got it exactly right.

I agree, although I think the smart thing would have been for her to say nothing at all. By responding she lowers herself into the fray.