It figures that the liberal media would find two words out of a nearly 8 minute video address to bash Palin over the head with and completely ignore her larger message.
Just for the record, Governor Palin was not the first person to characterize the liberals dumping the blood of innocents onto her head and the heads of others who dare to voice disagreement with Obama (despite overwhelming evidence that the murders in Arizona had nothing to do with anyone but the shooter) as a “blood libel.”
Glenn Reynolds called it a blood libel on Monday.
Mark Levin, a Jew, fully agreed with Glenn’s assessment on Monday as well. Around 4:45 -
Robert J. Avrech, a Jewish screenwriter, called this whole incident a blood libel on Monday morning:
It is entirely predictable that the New York Times and the left in general—with some rare exceptions—are anxious to bring a blood libel against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Smear, innuendo and outright lies are coin of the realm in the political discourse of the New York Times and their liberal progressive fellow travelers.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal, a Democrat operative counseled the White House to “deftly pin this on the tea partiers.”
Never mind that murderer Jared Loughner’s politics are an incoherent morass of Communism, Nazism and outright madness—he is convinced that the government is manipulating “American grammar.”
As Jews are blamed for, well, everything—hence blood libels—Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have become scapegoats, the Jews, to the political discourse of the Democrats.
Jews for Sarah offered to make Sarah Palin an honorary Jew because of the false accusations against her on Tuesday, before she posted her video:
JewsForSarah ‘Comment of the Year’ Award . . . Goes to . . .Eugene V., of Albany, CA, who wrote us:
The propensity of the liberal media to blame everything on Sarah Palin reminds me of how the Jew-haters blame everything on Jews. Hence, I move to make Sarah an ‘honorary Jew.’
After Palin echoed the characterization of what transpired in the last few days as a ”blood libel” in her video address on Wednesday, the media lost its mind. Jews for Sarah put out an initial statement and a longer post on why they believe the term is appropriate.
Jim Geraghty listed the different ways the term has been used: The Term ‘Blood Libel’: More Common Than You Might Think.
Mark Levin addressed the slamming of Palin for using the same term others have been using for the past few days on his show last night:
The last caller has a point. How on earth is this in any way anti-Semitic? It’s not.
Robert J. Avrech posted on the media’s criticism of Sarah Palin for using the term:
The charge that Jared Loughlin’s shooting spree was inspired by overheated rhetoric from the right is completely false, a vicious slander by bitter liberals who, in the last election, witnessed an historical rejection of progressive dogma.
But nothing, especially facts, will halt the cynical charge of the left.
Now, they have seized on the phrase blood libel in Sarah Palin’s address as, well, something to seize upon and delegitimize—as the left delegitimizes Israel.
Seraphic Secret was, perhaps, the first in the blogosphere to correctly identify this liberal blood libel. Further, we have said that Sarah Palin and all the usual conservative suspects have become the hated Jews—scapegoats—to the progressive left.
Thus, we applaud Sarah Palin’s decision to use this highly charged but accurate description.
And let’s be honest, no matter how measured and eloquent Governor Palin’s remarks, the left will relentlessly attack and smear her for she is a direct and effective threat to their vacuous world view.
Liberal Jew Alan Dershowitz, agreed with Sarah Palin’s use of the term:
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report.
There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
Even Jonathan Chait came to Palin’s defense:
She does have a basic point. She had nothing to do with Jared Loughner. He was not an extremist who embraced some radical version of her ideas. And her use of targets to identify districts Republicans were, um, targetting is not exceptional or prone to incite anybody.
What’s happening is that Palin has come to represent unhinged grassroots conservatism, and people in the media immediately (and incorrectly) associated Loughner with the far right. Moreover, the Republican establishment understands her potential candidacy as a liability and is looking to snuff it out. So you have this weird moment where Palin is on trial for something she has no connection with at all.
In the wake of liberals using a mass murder as a political device to shut down their opponents and put blood on Sarah Palin’s hands, death threats against Sarah Palin and her family are at an all-time high. Many have been convinced that some way, some how, Palin pulled the trigger, an accusation that is completely baseless. But that doesn’t stop them from believing it and issuing death wishes of their own, in full public view.
Lastly, I find it ironic that most who are “offended” because Palin used the phrase support a President who has a spotty history of support for Israel at best.
Oh, and be warned, libs. If you try to smear Mark Levin in this manner, he’ll drag your, um, “behind” into court.