" />

The Moderate Voice

An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right


You are here: Home / Politics / Sarah Palin and “Blood Libel”

Sarah Palin and “Blood Libel”

by 4 Comments

What does Sarah Palin mean when she uses the religious phrase, blood libel, in her commentary on the shooting of Rep. Giffords?

After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. […]

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions… 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.

I’m not familiar with the phrase “blood libel,” so I turned to Wikipedia for an overview.

Blood libel is a false claim made by Christians that Jews murder children of other faiths in order to use their blood in religious ritual. The claim “may have originated in the 12th century from Christian views of Jewish behavior during the First Crusade” but other scholars place its origins to the 1st century BCE.

You may have heard of St. William of Norwich, who personified the claim in 12th century England. (I hadn’t – not much of a Christian historian.)

In 1144 CE, an unfounded rumor began in eastern England, that Jews had kidnapped a Christian child, tied him to a cross, stabbed his head to simulate Jesus’ crown of thorns, killed him, drained his body completely of blood, and mixed the blood into matzos (unleavened bread) at time of Passover. The rumor was started by a former Jew, Theobald, who had become a Christian monk. He said that Jewish representatives gathered each year in Narbonne, France. They decided in which city a Christian child would be sacrificed. […]

Pope Innocent IV ordered a study in 1247 CE. His investigators found that the myth was a Christian invention used to justify persecution of the Jews. At least 4 other popes subsequently vindicated the Jews. However, the accusations, trials and executions continued. In 1817, Czar Alexander I of Russia declared that the blood libel was a myth. Even that did not stop the accusations against Jews in that country.

So why would Palin use such imagery? To whom is she talking? How is she positioning herself and her followers — as persecuted Jews?

Jonah Goldberg, at NRO, says that Glenn Reynolds “introduced” the term “to this debate.” (He did so in a WSJ column on Monday.) By “this debate” I assume Goldberg means the discussion about violence-tinged political rhetoric. The comments on Goldberg’s post are revealing. For example:

To me, an accusation “blood libel” is a very vivid piece of invective. It’s a waste to confine it to its original usage. It helps rather than hurts that it was used in other contexts. Palin has been falsely accused of causing the murder of a nine year old girl and five others. Even if others long ago had to endure worse insults, why is it an insult to their memory to reuse this language?

Think about this: “vivid piece of invective.”

Yes it is — and that’s the problem. It’s an invective. Invectives don’t bring people together to solve problems. They push people apart.

I see that I am not alone in wondering about — questioning — the remark:

In short, Palin’s speechwriters have managed to both deflect attention from the victims of the tragedy as well as foreclose any reasonable discussion about political discourse. Intentionally. (Politicians do not use coded phrases without thought.)