Sarah Palin may or may not be the victim of unwarranted criticism in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree in Tucson last Saturday. As far as I'm concerned, that is a non-justiciable "political question"-- as federal judges get to say -- and one that I will gladly leave to the legions of inspired commentators who have been gnawing on that particular bone for the past few days.
But whatever Palin is, or is not, neither she (nor anyone else) is the victim here of a "blood libel," as she claimed Wednesday in responding to the tragedy in Arizona and the way she perceives it was handled by the media. Palin said:
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.
This is how Encyclopedia Judaica describes and explains the hateful and deadly history of the "blood libel":
BLOOD LIBEL, the allegation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially Christian children, in order to obtain blood for the Passover or other rituals: most blood libels occurred close to Passover, being basically a another form of the belief that Jews had been and still were responsible for the passion and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the divine child; a complex of deliberate lies, trumped-up accusations, and popular beliefs about the murder-lust of the Jews and their bloodthirstiness, based on the conception that Jews hate Christianity and mankind in general. It is combined with the delusion that Jews are in some way not human and must have recourse to special remedies and subterfuges to appear, at least outwardly, like other men. The blood libel led to trials and massacres of Jews in the Middle Ages and early modern times; it was revived by the Nazis. Its origin is rooted in ancient, almost primordial, concepts concerning the potency and energies of blood. In the early 2000s a controversy among scholars surrounded the argument that the blood libel began in the Middle Ages in the wake of the sacrifice of Jewish children by their parents during Crusaders raids on Jewish communities on their way to the Holy Land.
If Palin did not know what a "blood libel" means she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. And if she did understand its dark significance she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. Either way, It was inappropriate and insensitive. Even if Palin's point about media coverage is valid, and surely in some cases it is, it is not a "blood libel" to wrongly accuse someone of fomenting violence or to unfairly blame someone for inciting the violent acts of another. Nor is it a viable defense to a politician's sloppy use of the phrase that others -- on the left or on the right -- have loosely used the phrase before or that most Americans don't understand its tragic import anyway. Two or more wrongs don't make a right, right?