Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Sarah Palin, in her video addressing the shootings in Arizona, used the term ‘blood libel’ to describe what she argued was an erroneous argument: the linking of heated political rhetoric to the actual violence in Tucson.
“Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible,” she said.
But the term ‘blood libel’ is itself a piece of language that brings a lot of heat.
Historically, blood libel is a false accusation that Jews murder others in order to use their blood in ceremonies. Blood libel is a standard feature of anti-Semitism, stretching back centuries. The false accusation would be made, passions stirred.
“And what that then legitimated was not just anti-Semitism but violence towards Jews,” said John Esposito, an expert in religious and international affairs at Georgetown University.
History is littered with examples of Jews suffering retaliation at the hands of those accusing them falsely of sacrificial murder, he said.
It’s quite a jump, then, to recast ‘blood libel’ as a false accusation leveled at those behind heated political speech, the accusation being that that speech in some way contributed to the violence in Arizona.
“It shows there is a problem and they know they have a problem,” Esposito said. “And so what they’re trying to say is ‘we’re innocent victims’.”
Sarah Palin’s use of ‘blood libel’ is particularly confusing because, in constructing an argument separating heated political discourse from the violent acts of an individual, she invokes a phrase that is itself enormously loaded with meaning.
“We don’t get any greater clarity, it almost distracts from what the actual issue is here, and I think that’s the intention,” said Esposito.
Esposito calls Palin’s use of the term ‘inaccurate, objectionable and insensitive.’ It didn’t take long for Jewish groups in the United States to respond to Palin’s recasting of the term.
Jeremy Ben-Ami leads J Street, a self-described ‘pro-Israel, pro-peace’ organization in Washington.
“It is very confusing,” said Ben-Ami.
“But the bottom line is that this is historically a horrific charge that was used in a clearly anti-Semitic way that resulted in the murder and great harm to Jewish populations, particularly in Russia in the 19th and 18th centuries — and the term was banned and outlawed.”
Yet the phrase has never really gone away.
Today conservative commentators were quick to point out that, over the years, journalists, activists and politicians on both sides of the aisle have drawn on the rhetorical power of ‘blood libel’ to make their points.
It didn’t start with Sarah Palin, or others who have been using the term this week. And, Jeremy Ben-Ami said, it’s used in politics beyond the US.
“If you Google the term on the leading newspaper in Israel, Ha’aretz, if you Google the term ‘blood libel’ on their pages you’ll find it as well, frequently,” he said.
Which Ben-Ami said, is just as painful to him as hearing it used in the United States.
By 
Discussion
One comment for “Origins of “blood libel””