Yes, Palin was the victim of a blood libel

I don’t have problems with calling things by their true names.  So, I don’t think Palin erred in using the correct phrase — blood libel — to describe the heinous rhetorical attacks leveled against her.

Barry Rubin does an excellent job explaining precisely why her word choice was so accurate.

Jews have suffered inordinately from blood libels, but it doesn’t mean that they’re the only ones against whom that particularly malevolent type of falsehood is uttered.  Call things by their true names.  That’s part of freeing oneself with the truth.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • MacG

    The thing is that what she said was that the Left is “manufacturing A blood libel” – a clear indication that she understands that previous use indicates an inflammatory false belief and perhaps the original being a nasty passion based rumor still taken as fact in some circles.  Her speaking out was necessary to stem the tide of this tsumani of passion swelling by the left to warn others to get to high ground and look at this from a safe distance – get some perspective people.

  • suek

    It’s like the “death panel” phrase.  It panicked the Lefties.  They use so many words and when someone comes out with a short rephrasing that removes the polite cover up words, they immediately recoil in horror.  “Oh no!!!  We didn’t mean _that_!”  but keep thinking about it, and you find out that multi-syllabic words don’t change the meaning…it’s just another effort to dupe those who aren’t quite as familiar with the multi-syllabic words…  Emperor’s clothes, in other words.
     
    A spade is still a spade – not an earth moving tool.