Left-wing Jewish Groups ATTACK Palin's use of the term "blood libel"

[Maimonides]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110112/pl_yblog_theticket/jewish-groups-respond-to-palins-use-of-blood-libel

Several Jewish groups are criticizing Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" in her video statement on the Arizona shootings. The phrase traditionally refers to false anti-Semitic myths about Jews using the blood of Christians, often children, in their rituals.

Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement:

"It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game.  Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol.  In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

"It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Â Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

"Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood-libel' in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

The National Jewish Democratic Council, a group of Jewish Democrats, said:

"Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a 'blood libel' against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today. [...]

"All we had asked following this weekend's tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin's invocation of a 'blood libel' charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction."

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, a pro-Israel lobbying group that has criticized the hawkish policies of the current Israel government, wrote:

"The country's attention is rightfully focused on the memorial service for the victims of Saturday's shooting. Our prayers continue to be with those who are still fighting to recover and the families of the victims. The last thing the country needs now is for the rhetoric in the wake of this tragedy to return to where it was before.

"We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term 'blood libel' 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."

And Simon Greer of the Jewish Funds for Justice declared:

"We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin's decision to characterize as a 'blood libel' the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line. [...]

"Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator. As a powerful rhetorical advocate for personal responsibility, Ms. Palin has failed to live up to her own standards with this statement."

I know Palin is not to be trusted, but her response to the Arizona shooting is right on the mark. The leftists are trying to falsely blame the deaths in Arizona on the right, just as anti-semites blamed Jews for deaths they did not commit. It is true that the term "blood libel" has historically been used to describes anti-semitic defamatory accusations that Jews kill gentile babies for their blood, but in this case there can be some comparison, because leftists are falsely accusing right-wing of being responsible for the deaths in Arizona.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=487510653434

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

 

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

 

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

 

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

 

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. 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.

 

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

 

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

 

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions.  And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. 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.

 

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

 

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

 

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

 

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

 

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

 

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need G-d’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

 

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May G-d bless America.

 

- Sarah Palin

[Secularbeliever]

These are all left wing groups.  They will attack her no matter what she says.  Despite her shortcomings she is more pro Israel than any of her critics.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Foxman is full of crap, plain and simple

[mord]

And jstreet in bed with soros plus it's giving contracts to jeremy ben ami the the chief of jstreet

[Dr. Dan]

Foxman is such a winey self hating Jew. It's because of Jews like him, that we look like weaklings.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

GAYbe Foxman is the biggest anti-Semite since Klaus Barbie (yimach schmo) left the mortal coil.

[IsraelForever]

For me, this is a sensitivity issue.  For example, if some politician said that 12 people were murdered and it was a holocaust, I think Jews everywhere would have a right to take issue with that politician for not having enough sense not to compare the murder of 12 people (as horrible as that is) to our Holocaust.

In a like manner, I am astounded that no one in Palin's camp knew what the historical meaning of "blood libel" is.  If she doesn't know, wouldn't you think someone around her would know?  And if they did know, and still used the term, then that, to me, is being very insensitive to Jews everywhere. 

Now you may say that Jews don't own the term "blood libel."  No, we don't.  But that doesn't stop me from taking issue with her for using it wittingly, or being upset with her for being ignorant of the term and using it unwittingly.  Has she never heard the term "blood libel" before?

[Secularbeliever]

For me, this is a sensitivity issue.  For example, if some politician said that 12 people were murdered and it was a holocaust, I think Jews everywhere would have a right to take issue with that politician for not having enough sense not to compare the murder of 12 people (as horrible as that is) to our Holocaust.

In a like manner, I am astounded that no one in Palin's camp knew what the historical meaning of "blood libel" is.  If she doesn't know, wouldn't you think someone around her would know?  And if they did know, and still used the term, then that, to me, is being very insensitive to Jews everywhere. 

Now you may say that Jews don't own the term "blood libel."  No, we don't.  But that doesn't stop me from taking issue with her for using it wittingly, or being upset with her for being ignorant of the term and using it unwittingly.  Has she never heard the term "blood libel" before?

She knows very well what the blood libel means to Jews.  She wouldn't use the term if she did not understand it.  I think she even described it in her video.  I think you have a point that it does trivialize the real blood libel just like when people use the term Holocaust loosely.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

For me, this is a sensitivity issue.  For example, if some politician said that 12 people were murdered and it was a holocaust, I think Jews everywhere would have a right to take issue with that politician for not having enough sense not to compare the murder of 12 people (as horrible as that is) to our Holocaust.

In a like manner, I am astounded that no one in Palin's camp knew what the historical meaning of "blood libel" is.  If she doesn't know, wouldn't you think someone around her would know?  And if they did know, and still used the term, then that, to me, is being very insensitive to Jews everywhere. 

Now you may say that Jews don't own the term "blood libel."  No, we don't.  But that doesn't stop me from taking issue with her for using it wittingly, or being upset with her for being ignorant of the term and using it unwittingly.  Has she never heard the term "blood libel" before?

I didn't bother reading her response because its just pc backtracking to appease the adl whiners and their hysterics.  She certainly doesn't want to upset them or make enemies witht them so she humbles herself in response -nothing more.

Obviously she used the term because she has heard it before and knows what it means.  Likewise with her speechwriters.  Its a false accusation of murder designed to persecute a group of people.  It comes from the historical example of what was done to jews by christians and later by arab muslim nazis.  But. Its definition is not limited to jews, its a term that has a general meaning that seems to fit the bill here.  I don't get what the fuss is about.

[IsraelForever]

I don't get what the fuss is about.

Despite what I said above, I do not think Jews should have made an issue of it publicly.  While I believe what I said, I think sometimes it's best to pick your battles, and I don't see her using "Blood libel" as a big enough battle.  I think that making an issue of it publicly can actually feed the Jew-haters.  But I still think less of her for not knowing the historical attachment of that term to Jews and antisemites.

Let me add one more thing:  She did twist the meaning of "blood libel" in this case.  Jews were accused of actually using blood.  What blood was she using?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Abraham Foxman uses blood from Jewish babies in his Passover seders.

You really think he has a Seder?

[eb22]

Most,  if not all of these leftists advocate appeasement and so called peace polices that would cause death and injury to countless Jews in Israel.     

[eb22]

The commentary that Chaim did back last Spring comes to mind when reflecting about Abe Foxman:

'JTF Discusses Self Hating Jews Abe Foxman and Mike Bloomberg'

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Only if he can find a Jewish baby.

Its dark humor, but that is really funny.

Abe "Arab Defense League" Foxman is one of the most monumentally repulsive members of the "Jewish Establishment".  Never stands up for authentic Jewish ideas, and always sides with the enemies of the Jews.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

That animal looks like a fair-skinned Arab. Yimach schmo vezichro to this obese beast.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

That animal looks like a fair-skinned Arab. Yimach schmo vezichro to this obese beast.

He looks like he never misses a meal.  Most likely a result of all of those $1,000 plate plate gourmet meals at ADL fund raisers where he plans on how to keep the Jew as the most hated minority in America [the more antisemitism in America, the more funding for Abe Fauxman!].

[Dr. Dan]

Despite what I said above, I do not think Jews should have made an issue of it publicly.  While I believe what I said, I think sometimes it's best to pick your battles, and I don't see her using "Blood libel" as a big enough battle.  I think that making an issue of it publicly can actually feed the Jew-haters.  But I still think less of her for not knowing the historical attachment of that term to Jews and antisemites.

Let me add one more thing:  She did twist the meaning of "blood libel" in this case.  Jews were accused of actually using blood.  What blood was she using?

Instead of the adl wasting its breath on something this dumb, they don't take the time to acknowledgeobamas anti semitism and not attacking iran.  The adl is a fraud and they don't deserve to even criticize palin even if shes a retarded politician.

[Rubystars]

Abraham Foxman uses blood from Jewish babies in his Passover seders.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

DBN: I think you're right about Foxman making matzos out of the blood of Jewish babies.

[mord]

These are extreme leftist groups they would attack conservatives no matter what .Whatever Palin said they would attack her