Why Sarah Palin's Use Of The Words "Blood Libel" Offends Jews And Speech Plays Victimhood.

Sarah Palin's video statement on the Tucson shootings is an interesting example of how meanings can change over time and can be ripped from their original context. This was obviously a well-crafted statement, not something said off the cuff, so Palin and her advisors certainly thought carefully about whether to include these elements. In the new Fact Checker, from time to time we will provide context for the terms that politicians use without awarding any Pinocchios.


Blood Libel

"If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, 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."
--Sarah Palin

The term "blood libel" has a very distinct history. It refers to the false accusation, dating back centuries, that Jews would sacrifice Christian children for various nefarious or even religious purposes -- such as using their blood as an ingredient in the unleavened bread in Passover ceremonies. It was a core tenet of anti-Semitism, widely believed in medieval times and beyond, and often resulted in persecution, murders and other actions against Jews. A pro-Israel website lists more than two dozen examples of blood libel against Jews over the centuries, including as recently as 2005 in Russia.

Palin's use of the term has sparked controversy, in part because she is not Jewish and has often spoken of the United States as a Christian nation -- and because the target of the alleged shooter, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is Jewish. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street tweeted, "We hope @SarahPalinUSA will recog that Jews are pained by, take offense at use of 'blood libel'"

Read more here.