By Ted Belman
Many Jews, beginning with Abe Foxman, have been criticizing Sarah Palin, what else is new, for using the term “blood libel”. Evidently they believe Jews have an exclusive on the term. I don’t. I agree with the following.
Statement of Jewish American for Sarah Palin regarding Gov. Palin’s use of term ‘blood libel’.
-
Sarah Palin got it right.
Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel – whether it’s the medieval Church accusing Jews of baking blood in Passover matzos, or contemporary Muslim extremists accusing Israel of slaughtering Arabs to harvest their organs – or our political partisans blaming conservative political figures and talk show hosts for the Tucson massacre.
In medieval Europe, beginning with the Norwich blood libel of 1144, such accusations were used to incite mob violence against Jewish communities. Blood libels also appeared in the Arab world, as recently as the infamous Damascus blood libel of 1840.
In more recent times, prominent voices in the American Jewish community have characterized extreme and irresponsible attacks on Israel or Jews as “blood libels,” even when those libels did not necessarily result in violence.
For example, the Anti-Defamation League has said that a Swedish newspaper’s claim that Israeli soldiers murder Arabs to harvest their organs was a “new blood libel” (Sept. 14, 2009); that an Abu Dhabi Television cartoon of Israel’s prime minister drinking Arab blood was an “anti-Semitic blood libel skit” (Nov. 19, 2001); and that a Syrian diplomat’s remark that Israeli children sing songs about drinking Arab blood is similar to “the ancient blood libel against Jews.” (June 14, 2010)
Likewise, former New York City mayor Ed Koch has said that anti-Israel accusations made by Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks were “comparable to the age-old blood libel used by anti-Semitse to incite pogroms in Europe.” (August 17, 2006)
Beyond the Jewish community, the term “blood libel” is periodically used by political partisans of all stripes. During the 2000 Florida vote recount, for example, Congressman Peter Deutsch said that some Republican accusations against Democratic nominee Al Gore were “almost a blood libel.”* Newsday editor Les Payne said in 2008 that criticism of African-American journalists’ coverage of the Obama candidacy were a “blood libel.”** Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said that John Kerry’s 1971 testimony about alleged war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam was “a blood libel.”*** Alex Beam of the Boston Globe said that anonymous Globe staffers who accused former colleagues of privately making racial slurs were “making charges that amounted to ‘blood libel.’”****
“Blood libel” does not refer exclusively to accusations against Jews. It does not refer only to medieval episodes that resulted in pogroms. It is a term that has been, and continues to be, legitimately used in contemporary American political discourse by all sides. Governor Palin’s use of the term is accurate, reasonable, and squarely within the bounds of accepted political discourse. It is her opponents’ attempts to falsely connect her to the Tucson massacre which is inaccurate, and unreasonable, and beyond the pale of civilized discourse.
Dershowitz defends Palin use of term ‘blood libel’
-
“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.”
Yamit,
I understand that back in the day, even Idi Amin managed to get Israeli jump wings. I somehow doubt that he went through prior Israeli military training. (He was pro-Israel until Israel refused to sell him weapons so he could invade Tanzania.)
My point is that I imagine that for interested foreigners of a “VIP” nature with at least some military training, certain “arrangements” are made.
No, my “friend” isn’t Jewish and does not speak Hebrew.
I’m as pro-Palin as I am because I’ve seen her live. She has incredible charisma and potential on the political stage. I’ve seen other politicians up close, too, and none I’ve seen besides her compare that way. I think she has the best chance among those in the field to deliver a crushing defeat to Obama in 2012.
I would certainly be happy to support, alternatively, Mike Huckabee, Allen West, or Michelle Bachman. But the question in each case: where will they be in 2012? The only one with any chance at all of getting the nomination in 2012 of those you list is Mike Huckabee, and I think Palin would be a more compelling candidate.
No argument about Bush….During the ’08 campaign, I often warned others that if, with respect to Israel, they wanted “four more years of Bush”, then they should vote for Obama.
If I were armed? None of the above. When is the last time you saw Palin in the middle of the street or shopping mall with a rifle in hand? Get real! Very few people even your gun people would probably freeze when having to shoot another human and then out of nervousness might hit innocent bystanders in addition. That’s why soldiers and security professionals go through extensive training so they react without hesitation.
Civilians at best are chancy.
Vinnie she also said that Tel Aviv was a settlement and while she may have caught up on nuance and some facts since,her type of support to my mind is nothing special or different than many if not most Christians who tend to support Israel. I call it an idealized type of support. Now huckabee has been here about 20 times has brought hundreds of Christians in tours with him knows all of our leaders, knows our history better than most here on Israpundit and does not support any solution involving giving up our land. Compare his support, knowledge of Israel past and present and his vocal support in every forum? then if support for Israel is your main criteria for supporting an American politician how can you compare? Michele Bachmann lived here for almost two years and has as deep a commitment and knowledge of any American politician. Col West likewise is smart knows our history, knows our real politic and can get past cliches and discuss Israel positively on any level. The first thing Rubio did after the elections was to come on a private vacation to Israel with no fanfare. Palin speaks generally of Israel as an ally that should be supported and wears a pin on occasion and has shown only the most superficial knowledge of Israel and has never visited. From all that you deduce she is Golda reincarnate?
I am not opposed to her I just can’t share either your reasoning or enthusiasm. I never thought much of groupies pop variety and especially political.
Re; your friend I just find it curious because you don’t get in to Paratroop course unless you go through basic training first and must excel to get into any of our elite brigades. Does your friend speak Hebrew? Is he Jewish?
I always though Bush was an imbecile but supported him over Gore. I opposed him for his second term not because I wanted Kerry but I believed a first term Kerry would be better for Israel than a second term Bush. I can’t prove how Krry would have turned out but I was right about Bush. I still think he is an imbecile and second to Carter as the president who did more to harm Israel. He wasn’t so great for America either.
Yamit,
I don’t have links. I was in personal commnication with him, and I have the e-mails, complete with attached photos. How I got them is none of your business. I’ll send them to Ted; he can forward them to you if he wishes. But you want to call me a liar, you want to call me anything, I don’t care. Your particular opinion of yours truly is not terribly important to me.
Sarah Palin had an Israeli flag in her governors office in Alaska. In an interview, when the subject of the Middle East came up, she said the Israelis should continue to build in the West Bank, that they have a perfect right to do this.
She wears an Israel/Ameican dual flag lapel pin (I’ve seen this). That is only a symbol, of course, but what American politician has the guts to do that nowadays?
I’m a two-state proponent: the two states being Israel and Jordan. I strongly suspect she’s in the same place.
That was McCain’s position. One of his top aides said as much in a speech in New York the summer before the election. When McCain traveled to Israel in March of ’08, he refused to meet with any representatives of the PA, a real slap in the face of the latter.
I know a Chabad rabbi who has a similarly employed relative in Alaska who knows Sarah personally.
Trust me, when it comes to Israel, Sarah will be McCain on steroids, if she gets that far.
…Or, don’t trust me. Again, your opinion is of little consequence to me, Yamit. What happens will happen regardless of your opinion or mine. We’ll see who is right.
Post links, I’m skeptical.
The truth is that Sarah Palin is so pro-Israel, she’s practically an “honorary Jew”
Can we then replace Jews like you with honorary Jews like her?
Why not since we’re discussing blood libels? 🙂
She has to my knowledge ever done anything for Israel or Jews and has never been to Israel. Yet I hear such superlatives based on semi pro Israel declarations and greetings. She is still to my knowledge still a 2 state proponent. You still see no contradictions?
The truth is that Sarah Palin is so pro-Israel, she’s practically an “honorary Jew” – can certainly be called a Zionist – and she will indeed be subject to “blood libels”….just like the rest of us! To her I say, “Welcome aboard, Sarah!” This will not be the last time, for sure.
Abe Foxman is the poster child for the flabby, useless mainstream establishment Jewish advocacy organizations in the U.S.; AIPAC is no better. All they know how to do anymore is raise money to pay their own fat salaries.
Scratch the surface of any conservative politician or other public figure who is being bludgeoned by the media nowadays, and one is almost sure to find a staunch supporter of Israel.
There was a certain Republican challenger to a long-time Democrat incumbent in the House of Representatives, who was giving this incumbent a run for their money for the first time in many years. A national magazine – The Atlantic Monthly – took a peculiarly strong interest in this race, by digging up photos of the challenger in a Nazi uniform. He was involved in WW2 historical reenactments back in 2006, long before he ever decided to run for Congress.
What the article didn’t mention, of course, was that this same individual had also re-enacted for the Civil War in both Union and Confederate uniforms, had also done WW1 reenactments as an American “Doughboy”, and had reenacted as a U.S. Army WW2 paratrooper.
But most interesting of all, was that the Republican in question had also traveled to Israel during 2000, and while there, had got his Israeli paratrooper wings. I saw the pictures myself. Funny, how the Atlantic Monthly hadn’t dug up THOSE pictures (or maybe they had…which is why they elected to smear him as a “Nazi”…). This guy was as pro-Israel as the day was long…..
The hostility of the liberal left towards Israel knows no bounds. The cowardice of those who would try to get in their good graces (like Foxman) has no floor.
This is also the same twit who discovered his own Jewish ancestry only (appparently) after it became clear that Bush would garner more votes than the Demo’s thought it safe for them to lose.
“Kerry” is not, in his case, an Irish name. His paternal grandfather, “Frederick Kerry,” was born Fritz Kohn to Czech Jews. Both Fritz and his wife Ida were Jewish converts to the RC Church.
I would love to tell Sarah Palin that i am Jewish and I am not the least offended by her use of the term “blood libel”. I do feel offended by Abe Foxman claim. Foxman does not represent me. I believe that he is a useful politically correct idiot.
ORJ.
Select what you want in the blue box, then click “bquote” just above. The same goes for bold, Itallics and link
I didn’t know the meaning of blood libel.
I’ve turned off the cable news channels because of the incessant crap they put out. Filling 24 hours worth of news has become a curse. The last straw for me was the discussions on whether new house speaker John Boehner attending a memorial service in Washington DC for the victims of Saturday’s massacre in Tucson was as acceptable as getting on the plane with Obama to fly to Tucson for the service there. Puleeeze!
Right now I’m watching the Kids Next Door on the Cartoon channel. It’s healthier.
Sometimes there can be an over reaction on either side. There are alot of Jews who are in denial of Jewish history so to automatically slamdunk a gentile is an over reaction.
PS–Questions:
1) How do you get quotes in blue boxes?
2) Pinchas (sorry I didn’t get the bold right on your name): What is the “drome” in your writing “Palindrome”?
Ted wrote: Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel – whether it’s the medieval Church accusing Jews of baking blood in Passover matzos, or contemporary Muslim extremists accusing Israel of slaughtering Arabs to harvest their organs – or our political partisans blaming conservative political figures and talk show hosts for the Tucson massacre.
Ted wrote: “Blood libel” does not refer exclusively to accusations against Jews. It does not refer only to medieval episodes that resulted in pogroms. It is a term that has been, and continues to be, legitimately used in contemporary American political discourse by all sides. Governor Palin’s use of the term is accurate, reasonable, and squarely within the bounds of accepted political discourse. It is her opponents’ attempts to falsely connect her to the Tucson massacre which is inaccurate, and unreasonable, and beyond the pale of civilized discourse.
Pinchas wrote: I think a better definition is: accusing someone of murder for the purpose of defaming an entire group of people and so that others will seek violence against that group. I think that this is precisely what is happening to Sarah Palindrome and the Tea Party.
You both hit the nail on the head! I could not say it better. I’ve been “commenting” all over the net to this effect, adding: “I am a Jew. I am not offended by Sarah Palin’s use of the term ‘blood libel.'”
Abe Foxman has a habit of excoriating conservative friends of the Jewish people. He also attacked Geert Wilders.
When did J Street become the custodian of Jewish sensibilities?
Perhaps I was taking a break from MSNBC that fine & lovely day?
Message from one Jew to J Street:
Piss up a rope.
The largest and most important of Palin’s opponents (of which there are many) is mainline Republican conservativs who see her as an increasing embarrassment. The chorus is chiming. “YOU CANNOT IN WITH PALIN.
I think a better definition is: accusing someone of murder for the purpose of defaming an entire group of people and so that others will seek violence against that group. I think that this is precisely what is happening to Sarah Palindrome and the Tea Party.
J Street says:
I certainly disagree with this. This is the propaganda angle that those who are hard line
opponents of Sarah Palin will take.
As soon as I saw the intensity with which S. Palin was attacked, I thought to myself, “blood libel”.
The one making the most political hay out of the term “blood libel”, it seems, is actually Abe Foxman. If Jews like Foxman would stop using incendiary terms like this to attack their fellow Jews [in Israel — his ultimate targets], this world would be a much better place. Abe knows fully well, what switches the term throws in his liberal Jewish constituency, in which he is much more liable than Palin; and his exploitation of the term is beyond sinister. Palin’s use of the term merely shows that she has taken a greater than average interest in Jewish history.