Sarah Palin and her bloody "blood libel".
US politician Sarah Palin has answered those who accuse her of engendering a culture that resulted in the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and claimed the lives of six other people, by accusing them of "blood libel".
But is she correct in using the term?
Blood libel is defined as "a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various 'medicinal' purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions" [Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary].
It is a term that many Jews find offensive.
According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica blood libel can also mean "another form of the belief that Jews had been and still were responsible for the passion and crucifixion of Jesus Christ" and "popular beliefs about the murder-lust of the Jews and their bloodthirstiness, based on the conception that Jews hate Christianity and mankind in general".
So was Mrs Palin intending to offend or just speaking out of ignorance? Look at what she actually said: "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."
Strikes me she speaks without knowing what she is saying.
By the way, The Guardian came up with a punny headline today: Sarah Palin sticks to her guns after Arizona shootings and accuses her critics of 'blood libel'.
Mrs Palin is not the most widely travelled person on the planet. She only obtained a passport in 2006 and travelled outside the USA for the first time in 2007. This contrasts with Michael Palin (no relation) who has travelled all over the world.
0 comments:
Post a Comment