Is ‘Blood Libel’ Offensive To Jews? 

Or Just Another Faux Attack Of Sarah Palin? 

By Dell Hill

I’m not Jewish.  I’m Catholic.  I’m also a member of the Fourth Degree, Knights of Columbus.  That’s probably not a good excuse, but it’s a good reason why the use of the term “blood libel” never struck me as offensive to anyone, much less my Jewish colleagues and friends.  When this whole hubbub about blood libel surfaced I was concerned about it’s connection to Judaism and certainly wanted to learn its true meaning, and therefore educate myself so as not to be offensive to Jews, or anyone else, for that matter.

Although few in numbers, Jews have been my classmates and good friends since grade school and even though I knew very little about their religious beliefs, I respected those differences and went about my business, just as they did.  I know for a fact that at least a few of my FaceBook friends are Jewish and, undoubtedly, a few Jews are reading this post at this very moment.  That’s great, but I honestly don’t think you’re reading because your Jewish and I’m Catholic.  You’re reading because you want to know what I have to say.  Our religions have nothing to do with it.

Blood libel painting from Middle Ages

In this thirst for knowledge I’ve researched the definition of ‘blood libel’ and read a variety of interpretations as to its use over time.  Perhaps the fairest and most reasonable response to this current ballyhoo was delivered by David Harsanyi in this posting from Town Hall:  (Emphasis added)

 “Wasn’t it moving to see progressive tweetdom and punditry unite in the defense of Jewry — in the Middle Ages? As a member of this most oppressed minority, I personally want to thank you.

 After all, how dare she? The media are so sick and tired of Sarah Palin’s shtick (that’s one of the words we use in private) that they created a stampede to Wikipedia to quickly figure out just how divisive this “blood libel” thing, whatever it means, could be to American discourse.

Now, just for the record, we Jews haven’t been using the blood of gentile kids for our baking needs in at least a couple of decades, but in historical terms, blood libel refers to false accusations that Jews were murdering children to use their blood in religious rituals — and an excuse for anti-Semitism. It was heavily utilized in the Middle Ages by some Christians and, with a few modifications, is a regular smear in the Muslim world today.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of Israel antagonists at J Street (an outfit that USA Today accidentally referred to as “a political organization for Jews and supporters of Israel”), spoke for hundreds when he claimed 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” and demanded that Palin “retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.”

 Really? Memory? Inflammatory? Painful echoes? 

Jews, well, we can be offended like it’s 1257.

 If blood libel is really a distasteful parallel, it is only because we have intimately familiarized ourselves with the idea through a History channel documentary about the crusades.  And if our institutional memories make us so thin-skinned, there are far more tangible reminders of genocide when we hop into our fancy German cars (which we do a lot, because we’re in charge of everything).  Or it is certainly as offensive as the heinous deeds of Sarah Palin, which include, among many other transgressions, talking.

And as Jim Geraghty of National Review helpfully noted, the term “blood libel” has been used many times by pundits and journalists from both sides of the ideological divide, including the esteemed Frank Rich of The New York Times, over the years.

Liberal Alan Dershowitz, as sensitive as they come to anti-Semitism (both real and imagined), said in a statement that “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. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”

 Perhaps the greatest fear among liberals in this land is that someone like Sarah Palin might ascend to the presidency.  She is hated, literally.  Despised with a passion.  It doesn’t matter what she says or does; it’s wrong….and they will go out of there way to attack her.  They have reached the point where the use of metaphors is no longer proper, but they don’t hesitate to use nearly the exact same metaphors in their own speech!  If the woman (quite properly) clubs a fish to death, she’s skewered by every left-wing fanatic as though she were clubbing her own child.  If she shoots and kills a caribou for her families meat locker, she’s depicted as a murdering wench who actually enjoys the “kill”.  Anything and everything she does is twisted into some evil act in an all-out effort to eliminate her from moving up the political ladder.

While I don’t agree with everything Sarah Palin says or does, I most certainly don’t agree that any of us has the right to denigrate her solely to advance a political agenda, and that’s exactly what’s happening. 

For the record:  I strongly support Israel’s right as a sovereign nation to exist without fear of ANY violent attack from ANY other nation or entity.  If left alone, Israel is an extremely peaceful nation of people.  If antagonized to their limit, the Israelis can instantly become a devastating force to be reckoned with.  A lesson that has apparently never been learned by those who dare ‘poke and prod’ until the Israelis retaliate, and their retaliation is almost always definitive.

From a military standpoint, I would stand and serve in defense of Israel almost as quickly as I’d stand in defense of the United States.  And I firmly believe that most Americans would do the same.  I’m also intelligent enough to know that those who disagree with my line of thinking do so vehemently.  People aren’t wish-washy when it comes to Jews and Israel.  There is either strong support or strong opposition.  Very little in between.

For the past 65 years I’ve lived in peaceful harmony with a number of Jewish friends — some of them dear friends.  To the best of my knowledge, not one of them has ever caused me personal harm, nor has any one of them flown a passenger jet filled with hundreds of innocent people into a skyscraper full of thousands of innocent people!  I haven’t noticed any of my Jewish friends involved in any effort to destroy the fabric of the United States of America and while we continue to have totally different religious views and beliefs, we coexist in peaceful harmony.

It troubles me greatly that I can’t say the same for others with different religious beliefs.

The bottom line?  Sarah Palin used a  term as a metaphor — blood libel — in defense of  an attack on her as being responsible for murder.  Some are incensed at the use of that term.  Others, not so much.  When all is said and done I believe we’ll discover the real motive for such faux indignation — and it’s 100% personal and political.