Sarah Palin issued a statement which responds to critics who assigned various degrees of responsibility to her for the shootings in Arizona. Here is her video:
The full statement is here. I want to focus on these words:
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.
It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.
It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.
Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.
I agree with the ADL on this matter. Rep. Giffords is Jewish and it is insensitive at best for evangelical Palin to use a term which is offensive to Jews in this situation. Not only is it insensitive, the use of the term obscures the expressions of sympathy and the accurate aspects of her analysis.
Another consequence is that the judgment by which she judges will now be used to judge her rhetoric. For instance, Sarah Palin and the far right have invoked the term “death panels” as a way of accusing supporters of the health care bill of favoring the deaths of older people in order to cut costs. This would be a kind of blood libel, wouldn’t it? Accusing someone of creating a means to bring death to old people via legislation is a serious allegation and one that is simply false. In light of the currently toxic public square, evangelicals and social conservatives should just speak in plain and descriptive language rather than invent defamatory terms to describe ideological opponents.
Well GEE, David, since you’re able to find all these sources I guess most Jews really DO love Palin and appreciate her use of the term blood libel! It’s like you know Jews better than we know OURSELVES!
Seriously, move on already. You’ve already proven it to yourself in your own mind, and isn’t that what’s most important anyway?
There’s nothing to prove to anyone else, especially me, since I’m not changing my mind on this subject.
I understand that some Jewish people (not a monolithic group) are not offended by her remark.
I continue to believe it was insensitive and demonstrated a stunning lack of insight into the fact that she has done the exact same thing with her death panels accusations. Or maybe she doesn’t care, or doesn’t think it is a problem when she does it.
I don’t really like her positions on many things or the words she chooses to represent her ideas – having said that, the essence of what she is saying is that this is just going overboard and gathering mob mentality to accuse her for the Tucson shooting. I agree.
Much as I hate to be in a position of defending Sarah Palin, until now I had never even heard the phrase “blood libel” and wouldn’t have known what it meant either. So I do believe Palin was clueless about the anti-semetic meaning. However, I would have never used such a phrase without first understanding what it meant.
I very much doubt that she knew what it means. She didn’t write the speech and was probably taken completely by surprise by the reaction to it.
What made the blood libel so powerful was the involvement of children. As with the day school panic of the 80s, lack of evidence became proof of guilt. I don’t think the death panel lie works in quite the same way because it doesn’t involve children. Which is not to say that it hasn’t proved potent. But there’s nothing that gets people quite so deranged as telling them that a particular group is coming after their children.
I have to say I have never encountered the term “blood-libel” used as common parlance for a false accusation. I have only seen the term used in reference to accusations of ritual murder that were long made against the Jews. I just did some searches in Wikipedia and other web sources and can’t find any definition that does not refer specifically to ritual murder.
I doubt that Sarah Palin really believes critics of her gun map imagery are accusing her of the ritual murder of children. I’m also sure she did not mean to stir up anti-Semitic tensions. I think she’s just again showing that she doesn’t know much about either history or the English language.
Warren said he “cringed”. I frequently react to her statements in the same manner.
Hear! Hear!
I agree – Palin has SO many more problems to deal with. Like explaining how Alaska’s proximity to Russia bestows upon her foreign policy experience – LOL
I heard this with a completely different perspective.
I watched this video and feel strongly that a simple, unconditional expression of condolence and support for the victims would have been far more appropriate for someone who aspires to be a politician of the ‘first rank’.
I think Mrs. Palin has a right to defend herself, but my quarrel with what she said has two components. 1. Her use of inflammatory language obscured the other good things she said, and 2. She has engaged in the same kind of libel against which she defends herself.
One of my overall problems with the religious right is the defamation that some leaders are willing to engage in against ideological opponents.
The statement she made was all about her.
“People are attacking ME. What about ME. The lamestream media is attacking ME. Yes this is a tragedy, but equally important is how tragically I’M being affected.”
Emily K,
Guess you didn’t notice that the media WAS making it all about her. I applaud her for making a statement albeit a very poor choice of words.
I would have defended myself too if the media were trying to pin a massacre on me.
Palin walked out on the job for which she campaigned in order to cash in on her notoriety with a job at Fox and we wonder about her statements because… ?
It is an artifact of most politicians that they have a “stunning” lack of awareness about their hypocrisy.
I think the evidence is clear that Jewish people on the left and the right have no problems with the use of the word “blood-libel” by Ms. Palin.
And, in fact, it is an appropriate “metaphor” for what indeed was happening.
Picking at words is a popular political tactic. Especially claiming moral superiority or propriety; acting the better of the person you are criticizing.
Claiming exclusive rights to the interpretation and appropriate use of a word or phrase…in this case the left was wrong with the initial accusations and now in the subsequent “outrage” over the use of the term “blood-libel.”
It is important and successful purpose of this site to date to not get “caught up” in the stream of accusations and ill-informed assertions.
This posting fails on this mark.
Very well said – thank you David Blakeslee
Or maybe she was using the term as she understood it in a different context, not realizing it had another meaning that would come under this kind of scrutiny.
Another Jewish defender of Palin says:
and
stated by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
If you read her whole statement she made many worthwhile contributions to the debate relevant to the tragedy…
The inflammation occurs on all sides in part because we seek to and want to be offended by our opponents.
It is great energy for our greater purpose and mission…”targeting” and “defeating” our “enemies.”
I honestly think she is finding her way through treacherous ground – she might lack the wisdom to be politically correct, however, I doubt that she is deliberatly insensitive. While she might need to finesse her context and style to accommodate more people, I admire her sincerity and courage to speak about issues without being calculated and unctuous.
Romney/Santorum ’12
…I would add that this story in Tuscon has a great deal to do with Mental Illness, an area of expertise that you (Warren) could add significantly to through this site.
I have missed an opportunity to contribute myself…so the beam is in my eye.
But, the tantalizing characteristics of political outrage distracted you from commenting thoughtfully and coherently about the core matters involved in this tragic event (Severe Mental Illness).
32 dead at Virginia Tech, 6 dead here…SMI, male, college age and guns are the common denominators.
Easy to criticize those like you taking the risk to get involved reliably…take my words with a grain of salt.
Blessings
David Blakeslee,
I would caution you against making generalized statements about Jews. We have a famous expression among us – “two Jews, three opinions.”
Not only are we not a monolithic people, we seem to have an uncanny way of splitting ourselves up ideologically more than most peoples.
I would also caution you against making such statements as “most Jewish people” based on some stuff you found on the internet to back up what you already wanted to see.
Me? I shook my head at her use of “blood libel.” My first thoughts weren’t “antisemitism,” they were “she’s being overdramatic. She’s making it all about herself once again, in the face of tragedy. she’s playing a martyr again, the perpetual victim of.. well, EVERYone.” My SECOND thoughts, however, were “she’s being ignorant. She probably doesn’t even know what that term really means. She’s just trying to be dramatic.”
Honestly, the term “blood libel”, even when used in a context outside anything religious, still references an act that naturally leads to murder. Last I checked, nobody prominent that anyone takes seriously has called for Sarah Palin’s murder over killing children and drinking their blood.
The only person I hear talking remotely about something like that is Sarah Palin (claiming everyone else is saying things like that).
More:
Found here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/14/oy_vey_phony_indignation_over_blood_libel_108533.html
Not to “beat a dead horse”…oops, PETA will be checking in soon.
I am not sure that the above statement by the ADL is a condemnation:
Sounds like a wish…or something stronger, but not to the level of a condemnation.
Lets all breathe.
I’ll strongly disagree with David Blakeslee that blood libel was “an appropriate metaphor for what indeed was happening.” It is not “picking at words” to insist that a term so freighted with tragic history should be used with awareness and respect for its original meaning.
The “blood libel” against Jews accused them of truly horrific crimes–kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in the Passover celebration. None of Palin’s critics accused her of deliberately plotting and participating in murder. This is a debate about political rhetoric, and whether extreme, divisive rhetoric might influence unbalanced people and contribute to violence.
Instead of contributing something worthwhile to that debate, Sarah Palin’s inappropriate remark on “blood libel” just inflames it further.
🙂 I’ll keep doing what I do; and I trust you will also, or not, as you see fit.
Well GEE, David, since you’re able to find all these sources I guess most Jews really DO love Palin and appreciate her use of the term blood libel! It’s like you know Jews better than we know OURSELVES!
Seriously, move on already. You’ve already proven it to yourself in your own mind, and isn’t that what’s most important anyway?
There’s nothing to prove to anyone else, especially me, since I’m not changing my mind on this subject.
I agree – Palin has SO many more problems to deal with. Like explaining how Alaska’s proximity to Russia bestows upon her foreign policy experience – LOL
Another Jewish Liberal Checks in to Defend Palin, Ed Koch:
found here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/palin_defeated_unfair_critics_at_nyt__msnbc_108561.html
🙂 I’ll keep doing what I do; and I trust you will also, or not, as you see fit.
Another Jewish Liberal Checks in to Defend Palin, Ed Koch:
found here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/palin_defeated_unfair_critics_at_nyt__msnbc_108561.html
Emily K,
After review, their is nothing monolithic in my comments.
The ADL and others were asserting there was a monolithic interpretation of the term “blood libel” and use of that term.
I was counterbalancing that assertion, I think that is clear if you review the comments.
Palin walked out on the job for which she campaigned in order to cash in on her notoriety with a job at Fox and we wonder about her statements because… ?
I think Mrs. Palin has a right to defend herself, but my quarrel with what she said has two components. 1. Her use of inflammatory language obscured the other good things she said, and 2. She has engaged in the same kind of libel against which she defends herself.
One of my overall problems with the religious right is the defamation that some leaders are willing to engage in against ideological opponents.
I would have defended myself too if the media were trying to pin a massacre on me.
I watched this video and feel strongly that a simple, unconditional expression of condolence and support for the victims would have been far more appropriate for someone who aspires to be a politician of the ‘first rank’.
Emily K,
After review, their is nothing monolithic in my comments.
The ADL and others were asserting there was a monolithic interpretation of the term “blood libel” and use of that term.
I was counterbalancing that assertion, I think that is clear if you review the comments.
I heard this with a completely different perspective.
The statement she made was all about her.
“People are attacking ME. What about ME. The lamestream media is attacking ME. Yes this is a tragedy, but equally important is how tragically I’M being affected.”
Emily K,
Guess you didn’t notice that the media WAS making it all about her. I applaud her for making a statement albeit a very poor choice of words.
David Blakeslee,
I would caution you against making generalized statements about Jews. We have a famous expression among us – “two Jews, three opinions.”
Not only are we not a monolithic people, we seem to have an uncanny way of splitting ourselves up ideologically more than most peoples.
I would also caution you against making such statements as “most Jewish people” based on some stuff you found on the internet to back up what you already wanted to see.
Me? I shook my head at her use of “blood libel.” My first thoughts weren’t “antisemitism,” they were “she’s being overdramatic. She’s making it all about herself once again, in the face of tragedy. she’s playing a martyr again, the perpetual victim of.. well, EVERYone.” My SECOND thoughts, however, were “she’s being ignorant. She probably doesn’t even know what that term really means. She’s just trying to be dramatic.”
Honestly, the term “blood libel”, even when used in a context outside anything religious, still references an act that naturally leads to murder. Last I checked, nobody prominent that anyone takes seriously has called for Sarah Palin’s murder over killing children and drinking their blood.
The only person I hear talking remotely about something like that is Sarah Palin (claiming everyone else is saying things like that).
Very well said – thank you David Blakeslee
I am not sure that the above statement by the ADL is a condemnation:
Sounds like a wish…or something stronger, but not to the level of a condemnation.
Lets all breathe.
If you read her whole statement she made many worthwhile contributions to the debate relevant to the tragedy…
The inflammation occurs on all sides in part because we seek to and want to be offended by our opponents.
It is great energy for our greater purpose and mission…”targeting” and “defeating” our “enemies.”
I’ll strongly disagree with David Blakeslee that blood libel was “an appropriate metaphor for what indeed was happening.” It is not “picking at words” to insist that a term so freighted with tragic history should be used with awareness and respect for its original meaning.
The “blood libel” against Jews accused them of truly horrific crimes–kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in the Passover celebration. None of Palin’s critics accused her of deliberately plotting and participating in murder. This is a debate about political rhetoric, and whether extreme, divisive rhetoric might influence unbalanced people and contribute to violence.
Instead of contributing something worthwhile to that debate, Sarah Palin’s inappropriate remark on “blood libel” just inflames it further.
I honestly think she is finding her way through treacherous ground – she might lack the wisdom to be politically correct, however, I doubt that she is deliberatly insensitive. While she might need to finesse her context and style to accommodate more people, I admire her sincerity and courage to speak about issues without being calculated and unctuous.
Romney/Santorum ’12
…I would add that this story in Tuscon has a great deal to do with Mental Illness, an area of expertise that you (Warren) could add significantly to through this site.
I have missed an opportunity to contribute myself…so the beam is in my eye.
But, the tantalizing characteristics of political outrage distracted you from commenting thoughtfully and coherently about the core matters involved in this tragic event (Severe Mental Illness).
32 dead at Virginia Tech, 6 dead here…SMI, male, college age and guns are the common denominators.
Easy to criticize those like you taking the risk to get involved reliably…take my words with a grain of salt.
Blessings
It is an artifact of most politicians that they have a “stunning” lack of awareness about their hypocrisy.
I think the evidence is clear that Jewish people on the left and the right have no problems with the use of the word “blood-libel” by Ms. Palin.
And, in fact, it is an appropriate “metaphor” for what indeed was happening.
Picking at words is a popular political tactic. Especially claiming moral superiority or propriety; acting the better of the person you are criticizing.
Claiming exclusive rights to the interpretation and appropriate use of a word or phrase…in this case the left was wrong with the initial accusations and now in the subsequent “outrage” over the use of the term “blood-libel.”
It is important and successful purpose of this site to date to not get “caught up” in the stream of accusations and ill-informed assertions.
This posting fails on this mark.
Ann- Yes, perhaps. Until she speaks about it, we won’t know. I maintain that one attribution has her looking unaware of history and the other has her being insensitive. While I appreciate that she has been falsely accused of a lot and keep in mind, I have defended her frequently, I am disappointed by her after she left the Gov’s office.
Or maybe she was using the term as she understood it in a different context, not realizing it had another meaning that would come under this kind of scrutiny.
I understand that some Jewish people (not a monolithic group) are not offended by her remark.
I continue to believe it was insensitive and demonstrated a stunning lack of insight into the fact that she has done the exact same thing with her death panels accusations. Or maybe she doesn’t care, or doesn’t think it is a problem when she does it.
More:
Found here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/14/oy_vey_phony_indignation_over_blood_libel_108533.html
Not to “beat a dead horse”…oops, PETA will be checking in soon.
Ann- Yes, perhaps. Until she speaks about it, we won’t know. I maintain that one attribution has her looking unaware of history and the other has her being insensitive. While I appreciate that she has been falsely accused of a lot and keep in mind, I have defended her frequently, I am disappointed by her after she left the Gov’s office.
Another Jewish defender of Palin says:
and
stated by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
A Jewish man at a Jewish Newspaper checks in:
Found here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0111/tobin011311.php3
The outrage over politically correct speech at this site is becoming entirely predictable…and exhausting.
So much “tut-tut” and “tisk tisk”…lets talk about substance.
Much as I hate to be in a position of defending Sarah Palin, until now I had never even heard the phrase “blood libel” and wouldn’t have known what it meant either. So I do believe Palin was clueless about the anti-semetic meaning. However, I would have never used such a phrase without first understanding what it meant.
A Jewish man at a Jewish Newspaper checks in:
Found here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0111/tobin011311.php3
The outrage over politically correct speech at this site is becoming entirely predictable…and exhausting.
So much “tut-tut” and “tisk tisk”…lets talk about substance.
I don’t really like her positions on many things or the words she chooses to represent her ideas – having said that, the essence of what she is saying is that this is just going overboard and gathering mob mentality to accuse her for the Tucson shooting. I agree.
Warren said he “cringed”. I frequently react to her statements in the same manner.
I very much doubt that she knew what it means. She didn’t write the speech and was probably taken completely by surprise by the reaction to it.
What made the blood libel so powerful was the involvement of children. As with the day school panic of the 80s, lack of evidence became proof of guilt. I don’t think the death panel lie works in quite the same way because it doesn’t involve children. Which is not to say that it hasn’t proved potent. But there’s nothing that gets people quite so deranged as telling them that a particular group is coming after their children.
I have to say I have never encountered the term “blood-libel” used as common parlance for a false accusation. I have only seen the term used in reference to accusations of ritual murder that were long made against the Jews. I just did some searches in Wikipedia and other web sources and can’t find any definition that does not refer specifically to ritual murder.
I doubt that Sarah Palin really believes critics of her gun map imagery are accusing her of the ritual murder of children. I’m also sure she did not mean to stir up anti-Semitic tensions. I think she’s just again showing that she doesn’t know much about either history or the English language.
Can we really condemn people for using a phrase that “has become part of English parlance?” I don’t think so.
Can we criticize them for their hypocrisy….Absolutely.
Politicians are rarely our moral betters.
Hear! Hear!
Can we really condemn people for using a phrase that “has become part of English parlance?” I don’t think so.
Can we criticize them for their hypocrisy….Absolutely.
Politicians are rarely our moral betters.