Following is their defense of the Governor on how she was treated by liberal American Jews.
The primary victim of the wild accusations of culpability for the shootings was Sarah Palin, though she went unmentioned by name in President Obama’s speech. But that plucky lady needs no one to defend her. She issued a statement criticizing journalists and pundits who within hours of an unfolding tragedy were quick to “manufacture a blood libel that only served to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”
Their original charges having been thoroughly rebutted, (primarily) Jewish sufferers from Palin Derangement Syndrome, including David Harris of the partisan National Jewish Democratic Council, pounced on Palin for appropriating the term “blood libel” in her defense. Doing so, they argued, either showed ignorance of the provenance of the term in medieval charges that Jews use the blood of Christian children in baking matzos, gross insensitivity, or both.
Both claims were nonsense. Nothing in Palin’s statement gave any indication of whether she knew the history of the so-called “blood libel.” Nor does it really matter since the term has been widely appropriated as a metaphor for claims of vicious behavior without any basis in fact. While Jewish writers might primarily apply the metaphor to claims made against Israel or Jews — e.g., Palestinian claims that the IDF murdered thousands of Palestinians in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, or the Mohammed al-Dura hoax — it has long ceased to be applied only to charges against Jews.
The metaphor was apt for Palin, who had been accused of having the blood of the Tucson victims on her hands, without a scintilla of evidence.
Some events should never be used as a metaphor. The use of the term Holocaust to describe anything other than the systematic, ideologically driven attempt by the Nazis to exterminate the entire Jewish People, employing all the efficiency of modern technology, inevitably trivializes the Holocaust, to which there is no comparable historical event.
But the use of the term blood libel when applied to similarly wild and ungrounded charges functions in an opposite fashion: It serves as a constant reminder of the venomous charges made against Jews throughout the ages.
The treatment of Palin by American Jews and Jewish groups is indefensible and demonstrates their own lack of concern for Jewish interests. Palin has consistently been one of the most ardent defenders of Israel, and she wields a great deal of influence over millions of American Christians who share her views. Given the alacrity of the Jewish attacks on her, who could blame her if she were to ask: What kind of people consistently pay back good with bad and show such little gratitude for those who mean them only good?
You can read more here