Sarah Palin responded in a video this morning
to the criticism she has received in the wake of
the Tucson shooting, but many people today
have been more interested in her choice language
than the actual substance of her video response.
"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 that they purport to condemn," Palin
said in the video.
She was referring to the criticism she received
over her use of images of crosshairs to "target"
certain lawmakers during the midterm election
cycle.
As the New York Times' Michael Shear
explained, "By using the term 'blood libel' to
describe the criticism about political rhetoric after
the shootings, Ms. Palin was inventing a new
definition for an emotionally laden phrase. Blood
libel is typically used to describe the false
accusation that Jews murder Christian children to
use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the
baking of matzos for passover. The term has
been used for centuries as the pretext for anti-
Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews."
The use of that phrase sparked some commotion
in the Jewish community and spurred others to
come to Palin's defense. While the term has deep
connotations, there are other examples of its use
in a modern political context.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the left-leaning
Jewish political group J Street released a
statement saying he was "saddened" by Palin's
use of the term "blood libel."
The term, he said, "brings back painful echoes of
a very dark time in our communal history when
Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous
deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many
Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of
the term, we are sure that she will choose to
retract her comment, apologize and make a less
inflammatory choice of words."
Complete Coverage: Tragedy in Tucson
The Anti-Defamation League released a
statement that in part defended Palin, saying
she had "every right to defend herself against
these kinds of attacks." However, the group said,
"we wish that Palin had used another phrase,
instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish
history."
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari
Fleischer, a member of the Republican Jewish
Coalition's board of directors, did not address
Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel," but said, "It
it would have been even better if she simply rose
above the accusations about her map and
focused entirely on the bigger message of loss,
tragedy and the greatness of our country.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who
often comments on Israeli affairs, came to Palin's
defense, saying that the term has "taken on a
broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse."
Dershowitz said he has used the term himself to
describe false accusations against the State of
Israel by the Goldstone Report. He added, "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."
Ben Smith of Politico also points out that the
phrase has been used in a political context before.
For instance, the New York Post used it in a 1999
headline "after Hillary Clinton stood by as Suha
Arafat accused the Israelis of 'daily and intensive
use of poison gas' against Palestinian women and
children," Smith reports.
Conservative pundit Glenn Reynolds used the
phrase in a Wall Street Journal op-ed just two
days ago.
Source: Http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028345-503544.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment