GMTom wrote:Steve, I was unfamiliar with the term myself. I did a google search on it and every single hit I saw referenced anti-semetic connotations. As I said, if she said this off the cuff, it might fit real well and I would not blame her for not recalling those connotations. But it was a prepared speech, no freaking way did she ever use that phrase before. She did not follow through on the use of an unfamiliar phrase. Again, i do like her, I do think she meant zero ill will, I know she had nothing to do with this killing, I also don't blame her for being upset by those who are trying to make this something it is not ...but the phrase was simply a poor choice not "wrong" mind you but "poor".

I think Dershowitz and Min X understand anti-Semitism. I'll stand on their shoulders on this issue.

From Wikipedia (bold added):

Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, usually Jews . . .

Another definition:

Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of the victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children. ...

Palin was the subject of false and sensationalized allegations that her words and her map resulted in the death of others.

Hey, please tell me where I said she was being anti-Semitic. I never said that, I simply said she had chosen a poor phrase. Your first definition shows it, every darned google hit shows the same thing. She did not mean it, I doubt many honestly think she meant anything by it either. But still, it was a poor choice of words. Trying to defend this is the same as some of our liberal pals trying to weasel out of things they try to defend. I am conservative, I kind of like the lady, even though the phrase can work and work well, it was a poor choice due to the negative connotations...end of story, trying to defend her looks silly. Defend her from having said anything with ill intent ...cool, I myself said she meant nothing by it and those trying to claim she was being "insensitive" to Jews are playing the same game you are playing trying to defend her here.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib2.htm
I believe the original mis-justification (wrong word?) is Matthew 27 (24 and 25)
The term was wholly inappropriate within the context of what Pallin was apparently attempting to accomplish. Giffords is Jewish by the way, which somehow exacerbates the rash use of this term.
Particularly so when juxtaposed with the general temper of the day of speeches in the House, the same day.
Pallin supposes that she's the victim here. And, although she's right because of the specifics of this shooter... two things stick out.
1) When the Arizona sheriff ranted rashly about the political climate and rancor being responsible for the shooting...everybody believed it was a plausible statement. I'm sure that conservatives were holding their breath hoping it was Not true and crass opportunists on the left were hoping to pin the blame.
And as Tom pointed out, every time there's a shooting I'll bet Muslims hold their breath collectively...
What Pallin missed, that apparently everyone in the House of reps did get, was that the very fact that the Sheriffs statement seemed plausible at the moment he said it, made his statement dangerously true. That the next time, because there will be a next time, it could be directly attributable to something in the political debate. And most, in the House, accepted the view that they all held a collective responsibility to ratchet down the tone of the rhetoric.
What Pallin missed, with her sense of victim hood, was that it wasn't about her...
This should have been particularly apparent to her, in that Giffords video deploring Ms. Pallins use of gunsights has had wide viewership.
She had a difficult task with her message. She missed by a mile, at achieving respectability because she couldn't do what everyone on the House had done the same day .... assume that they were part of the problem. And she wants to be President?

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), among the chamber's bomb throwers, said he decided that "we need to be respectful of the fact that people on the other side of major issues are as intelligent as we are and as moral as we are.... Let's be kinder to each other, and let's send that as a present, a get-well message, to Gabby."

Though the victim was from their side of the aisle, Democrats made no attempt to wave the bloody shirt, instead vowing, as minority whip Steny Hoyer put it, "to reflect on our own responsibility to temper our words and respect those with whom we disagree, lest the failure to do so give incitement to the angriest and most unstable among us."

I am wondering who decided that "blood libel" could be used beyond its original historical reference to false allegations against Jews that they used the blood of Christians in their religious rituals? (this is a rhetorical question) Think how outrageous were accusations that Jews killed children to get their blood to make Matzos. It's a pretty watered down version of the term to use it in the sense that a person has sustained false accusations that they are responsible for someone's death. Allowing the use of blood libel in a broader sense weakens the association of the word with real historical events. I don't think it is appropriate for non-Jews to use the term. I guess if the majority of Jews are ok with an expanded use of the term, who am I to argue--but I am not sure that is true. Dershowitz, a Jew, used the term for his own reasons and certainly would be placed in an awkward position criticizing Palin when he used the term in a broader sense himself. As for MX's response, I don't see Palin's use of "blood libel" as anti-semitic--it's just inappropriate.

Palin was justified in her feeling of being attacked herself. But all told, Poor choice of phrase, her attempts to weasel out of the gun sights claiming they were survey crosshairs, her speech at the wrong time, her attempt to turn this political, all were poor, she screwed up big time.

Then again, any publicity is good publicity?
If that's true and most of this is minor stuff, time will tell if this may end up good for her, but I doubt it.

freeman wrote:I am wondering who decided that "blood libel" could be used beyond its original historical reference... As for MX's response, I don't see Palin's use of "blood libel" as anti-semitic--it's just inappropriate.

If I'm wrong, and "blood libel" has never been used outside the Jewish context, that wouldn't make Palin an antisemite any more than is the case when someone compares their huge tragedy to the ginormous tragedy of the holocaust. Frankly, I'm not all that enamored with the Jews who get upset every time someone fails to pay adequate semantic honor to the Holocaust or other aspects of the history of persecution of the Jews. For instance, while I'm fairly confident, without doing any googling, that "pogrom" can apply to actions taken not just against Jews, I bet a lot of Jews would get upset if the word were used lightly to describe some piddling offense. Get over it. It's a disservice to historical memory in its own way to make semantics such a central point. What good is it to "own" the word holocaust if nobody teaches kids any more about the actual event?

Is "blood libel" in the same class as "holocaust"? If so, Palin could be convicted of semantic insensitivity. Given that she's already earned a life sentence, this additional conviction will hardly end her career as some of the libs here are optimistically and absurdly predicting.

When I google "blood libel" I find that the #2 link, right after Wikipedia, is at zionism-israel.com. They of course provide no hint of use outside the Jewish context, but while their first sentence says, "The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children..." later on they include this odd bit: "[the blood libel] was an invention of the pagans." Huh? What pagans? And if pagans invented it, how can it mean the sacrifice of Christian children? I'm stumped.

Danivon: HERE is a blogger who notes that "It is quite common to read pro-Israel writers speak of blood libel, because it's quite common for the wicked Zionist Entity to be falsely accused of various atrocities." What he's saying is that some defender of Israel might write something like, "It's a blood libel for al Jazeera to report that Israel committed an atrocity in Jenin." Perhaps I've heard the phrase used in that context and thus become somewhat inured to it. Or maybe it's got more to do with THIS, from the Encyclopedia of Judaism:

Blood Libel (also "ritual murder"). False allegation that Jews used the blood of slain Christian children for ritual purposes, particularly for preparing Matzah for Passover. Originally the accusation was leveled against both the Jews and the early Christians by pagans [aha!], who misconstrued Jewish and Christian ritual. Ultimately the libel was turned against the Jews by Christians

Or perhaps I'm just thinking (as the above hints at) more of "ritual murder", and surely the Jews aren't the only folk who've been accused of that.

Again all Jewish references ...nothing "wrong" with that, but with so many negative connotations and so tightly aligned with this narrow association, it makes the phrase a poor choice. Also, do read what I said as well, this was a prepared speech, she didn't say this off the cuff, she's trying to sound smart and found a catchy phrase, at very first glimpse it seemed to fit. Not wrong, just a poor choice for all these reasons. I am not persecuting her for using this term, simply saying she should have thought about it first, especially after researching as she did.

freeman wrote:I am wondering who decided that "blood libel" could be used beyond its original historical reference to false allegations against Jews that they used the blood of Christians in their religious rituals? (this is a rhetorical question).

Probably the same guy who decided he could use "beyond the Pale" to describe anything but the boundaries of English-controlled Ireland, ""Trojan horse" outside of the context of Greeks and Turks or "Pyrrhic victory" for anything but a battle between Romans and Epyrans. Hurtful images for the losers in each case. What an insensitive lout!

Trojan Horse, hurtful image
...I was picturing the Trojan rabbit being hurled out of the French castle in the Holy Grail

Deeply insensitive to make jokes about a genocide, Tom, even if it isn't exactly recent. These things never go stale, you know. The legacy of the genocide perpetrated by those proto-rich white men still has the power to evoke outrage in every properly politically correct breast! After all, the whole Trojan conflict started over the attempts of the established racist patriarchy to limit female reproductive freedom and supress miscegenation.

Shame on you, you racist, sexist murderer!

Fetchez la vache !
or
suppose I built this large wooden badger?

rickyp wrote:The term was wholly inappropriate within the context of what Pallin was apparently attempting to accomplish. Giffords is Jewish by the way, which somehow exacerbates the rash use of this term.

You say it's inappropriate.

Dershowitz and Min X say it's not. Her meaning was clear. She was being unfairly blamed for the attack.

Giffords Judaism is completely irrelevant. It doesn't "exacerbate" anything.

I'll mark you down as "A Canadian against Palin." If you continue repeating the same post, I'll put you down as a "Canadian Repeatedly Against Palin."

Well, Mach, as usual you pick examples that are not particularly analogous to the instant situation (witness your using Reagan, Ford and Wallace as politically motivated assassination attempts against conservatives when only Ford can be accurately described as such).

Ricky, I am with you to a point. She used a poor phrase, but you simply insist on seeing things that are not there, to claim what she said was "wholly inappropriate" and you are now trying to claim Giffords being Jewish is some sort of slander? She did no such thing and absolutely nobody thinks that was the case, you are simply trying to create a situation that isn't there. You (as usual) have gone off the deep end and are carrying this too far. She mis-spoke, used a term that was maybe unwise, that's about it and trying to crucify her for anything else is putting your entire position in the realm of goofball sensationalism.

freeman wrote:Well, Mach, as usual you pick examples that are not particularly analogous to the instant situation (witness your using Reagan, Ford and Wallace as politically motivated assassination attempts against conservatives when only Ford can be accurately described as such).

Why are my examples not analogous, Freeman? Seems to me that "beyond the Pale" is particularly apt, since it describes not only British (some would say "occupied") Ireland, but also the area of the old Romanov empire where Jews were allowed to settle. Accordingly, one of the connotations of "beyond the Pale" describes a Jew who has gotten somewhere he (or she) doesn't belong. How offensive is that in the context of the shooting of a Jewish congresswomen? Yet I've heard several lefty talking heads describing Ms. Palin's remarks as "beyond the Pale." Where is your outrage?

As for my examples, they are exactly appropriate responses to your post, which posited that "politically based", not "politically motivated", assassination attempts have only targeted liberals. The subtle change you try to slip past us is important.

And what did you mean by "politically based?" I can only gather from the context. You wrote:

The people who have shot liberals are always considered to be lone crazies. But they operated in a climate that contributed in part to what happened. For some odd reason politically based shootings in the U.S. seem to be almost exclusively against liberal politicians...Crazy people just happen to hate liberals?.

Your last sentence clearly indicates that you're including attacks by "crazy people" in the category of "politically based shootings." I simply pointed out that crazy people also seem to have it in for conservatives, too.

You shouldn't ask questions--especially inane, try-to-be-snarky questions--that you don't want answered.