You gotta hand it to Sarah Palin…she never disappoints. In her attempt to repudiate charges that her brand of inflammatory rhetoric had anything to do with the tragic shootings last weekend in Tucson, she decided to employ her strongest example yet of…you guessed it, inflammatory rhetoric. In the seven-minute video she posted this morning on her Facebook page, Palin accused journalists and pundits (I’m surprised she didn’t call them the “lamestream media,” a term that makes me cringe every time I hear it come out of her mouth) of manufacturing a “blood libel” against her.
May I say right up front that unlike some of my liberal brethren, I don’t view Sarah Palin as the anti-Christ. It makes me uncomfortable when she is spoken about with total disdain or horror. I don’t think she’s particularly stupid or ignorant and while I vehemently disagree with her political views, I can imagine contexts where I’d actually admire her. I read chunks of her first book (in the bookstore, I couldn’t bring myself to pay for one) and when she wasn’t frothing at the mouth about the Evil Left, I kind of liked her. That said, I’ve found nearly ever action of hers since the election mean-spirited, intensely self-serving, and purposely designed to whip up negative mass hysteria. Forget politics—this woman should be a cult leader! Can anyone name one truly positive thing she’s done to help this country since she catapulted onto the national stage in 2008?
No, I don’t “blame” Palin for the actions of Jared Lee Loughner last weekend in Arizona, she is clearly not responsible in any way for the shootings. Still, I believe the conversation about the extreme vitriol employed by Palin and her ilk (yes, yes, I realize people on the left are guilty of this, too!) and the violent metaphors she uses (e.g., depicting Gabrielle Giffords in the cross-hairs on a now infamous map of vulnerable Democrats) and what effect such things have in our country is a valid discussion that we need to have. But instead of acknowledging any desire for cooler tempers, working together with others even if we disagree with them, or the benefits of basic civility, Palin goes on the attack yet again with her ridiculous and offensive use of the loaded “blood libel.” How she seems to relish her role as National Provocateur!
Of course the blood libel refers to the practice that began in the Middle Ages when Jews were accused of killing Gentile children (and sometimes their own Jewish children) and using their blood for religious rituals. It was invented by anti-Semitic Catholic priests, probably as early as the 12th century, to justify attacks and murder of Jews. The blood libel has never completely disappeared and it has extended far beyond its original Catholic audience—it flourished in different periods of history whenever there was a desire by a group to dehumanize and discriminate against Jews. I looked up the term in the New York Times archives this morning and found a wealth of articles about events in every decade of the last hundred years.
On August 27, 1911, less than a year after my own family left Eastern Europe because of persecution, the New York Times reported that “for several months, the six million Jews in the Russian Empire have been living under the shadow of fear of renewed massacres…many organizations, through their organs and at their meetings and in their churches have been inciting the Russian populace against the Jews. The Jews of Russia are being accused of having murdered a Christian boy for ritual use. ‘Just before Passover,’ wrote M. Menshikoff in The Novoye Vremya, Russia’s leading official newspaper, ‘a twelve-year-old boy named Yuschinsky was lost. He was going to school, passed the Jewish settlement, but never returned. His body was found in a cave near the house of a Jew. From all the numerous symptoms the people of Kiev have come to the conclusion that the boy was a victim of the Chassidim, a Jewish sect which sprang up in Poland in the eighteenth century. In a well known book, the following circumstances of ritual murders are described. It is committed on the eve of Passover for the purpose of securing Passover blood. This is used for the preparation of matzohs. It is also poured into wine and is used for numerous other purposes.”
The author of the article then goes on to explain why Jews in Russia should not be afforded any additional rights or privileges. “When the Jews will attain equal rights, when their audacity will reach the highest point, there is no doubt that the ritual murders of Christian children will grow more frequent.” After describing the torture of the unfortunate Christian boy, the author implores all Russians to do their duty, saying that the death of the boy is upon the conscience of all Russia. The article goes on to describe a series of punishments that should be meted out against the Jews and states that since they are not “real” Russians, they should all go back to Palestine where they belong. Incidentally, it was later discovered that the murder of the Yuschinsky boy was a plot sponsored by anti-Semitic organizations. The poor boy was murdered by his stepfather after a substantial insurance policy was taken out in his name. Oy.
The blood libel wasn’t restricted to Europe. In October 1928, authorities in Massena, New York, accused a rabbi of using the blood of Christian children in his Yom Kippur services. Dr. Isaiah Katz, a rabbi in the Bronx, tried to disprove the claims by striking a very defensive-sounding stance. “Henceforth we shall make ourselves secure against such incendiary innuendoes by a preventive policy. I would offer a standing invitation on the part of Jews to their non-Jewish friends to visit our homes and our synagogues when we carry on religious rites. We have no magic faith to be ashamed of before moderns nor evil secrets of any kind to hide. Our neighbors in very neighborly fashion may come to see, and through observation scatter the mist of superstition.”
More than 30 years later, the blood libel was still alive and well in Russia. In January 1963, the New York Times reported on the most serious anti-Semitic disorders in recent Soviet history. “The riots were incited by a Moslem variation of the ancient Christian superstition of the ‘blood ritual.’ This medieval relic holds that Jews use the blood of non-Jews for religious ceremonies. Scores of Jews were assaulted and injured in their streets and in their homes in Soviet Uzbekistan in an attack that lasted for six days…In Tashkent, an Uzbek Moslem led a band on a 70-year-old Jewish shopkeeper, Abigai Bangieva, accusing her of using blood from his daughter’s ear for a Passover ritual. She was charged and held for three weeks. Wild stories led to uncontrolled assaults on Jews. Later is was discovered that the daughter had cut her ear in a fall.”
There were similar reports from the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and in more recent times. An article called “The Modern Use of Ancient Lies,” reported that a TV station in Abu Dhabi, one of the most popular in the Arab world, showed a cartoon of Israel’s prime minister as a vampire drinking blood. In Syria, the defense minister has published a book, “The Matzoh of Zion,” in which he elaborates on the charge of ritual murder.
Though the story had its roots in medieval Europe, the Nazis, of course, loved it, with Der Stürmer devoting article after article on the subject, complete with grisly illustrations. Today, many radical Islamist sites offer the full texts of these Nazi propaganda pieces. A few years ago, “Al-Shatat,” a popular, Syrian-made TV mini-series included scenes of bearded Jews slitting the throat of Christian children. And so it goes.
Mind you, in her strange and unfortunate use of the term, I’m not accusing Sarah Palin of anti-Semitism. Au contraire, in her analogy, she’s the Jew, right? With journalists and pundits cast as the mob that is out to get her. No incendiary rhetoric there.
How did you manage to make this an anti-semitic conversation? Oy Vey.
Posted by: helena | January 12, 2011 at 05:24 PM
Sarah Palin needs to stop speaking. She's not good at it.
Posted by: Sarah | January 12, 2011 at 05:35 PM
Occam's Razor tells me Palin's heard the expression, doesn't know the history behind it and thinks it's "libel, cranked up to eleven".
Or would that be Hanlon's Razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained be stupidity")?
Posted by: nlpnt | January 12, 2011 at 05:53 PM
Helena: Because she used a term that has an anti-semetic history.
Posted by: piomoretti | January 12, 2011 at 07:11 PM
She's too ignorant to know the phrase, "blood libel." Somebody had to have suggested it to her.
Most people are too quick to believe anything negative that is said about people whom they already dislike. And, opportunists like Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. take full advantage of that. Why did she remove her map filled with "surveyor's marks" immediately after the shooting ? This evil woman (and those who defend her) are as guilty as the actual shooter, because they incite hatred and violence. One good thing is that her words and actions since the shooting have alienated even more people from her ranks of supporters and have further poisoned her political ambitions.
Posted by: Gordon | January 12, 2011 at 07:51 PM
I'm pretty sure she didn't come up with the term on her own. She's got a host of writers at her elbow and they are as fervently moronic as she is - clearly none of them know their history from the use of the term "blood libel" to the history of the original Tea Party. They know just enough to get themselves into trouble.
No its not her "fault" nor anyone else's but Loughner's. I agree with Sarah - Palin should stop talking.
Posted by: elisabeth | January 12, 2011 at 08:57 PM
Duh.. I know the history but why does it have to be seized upon?
It was not the intent and it has a broad metaphorical meaning.
Check out Alan Dershowitz. The world is not all about the Jews all the time.
Posted by: hp | January 12, 2011 at 08:59 PM
It's not?
Posted by: Danny | January 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM
It was an extremely careless use of the phrase. I take back what I said about her being evil. She isn't evil. She's ignorant and careless. Words can hurt, and words can influence (for good or evil), and they can incite violence.
Posted by: Gordon | January 12, 2011 at 10:46 PM
Danny,
What I most admire about you is your willingness to use your time, energy, compassion, love of words, respect for history, your appreciation of the absurdity of human behavior, your tradgi-comic sense of humor, and the unique set of cultural/ethnic/religious traditions, values, amalgams, and family relationships/history that have formed you (and continue to form you daily) to try to speak/write in that vulnerable, masterfully intelligent, cogent, and, ultimately highly educational and entertaining way (it is my thesis that perhaps your true calling is that of "teacher").
You are, oddly enough, my definition of an "optimist," although, to be honest, I didn't know that until it appeared here on my computer screen. But, it is true, you are an optimist as I conceive of one. You take the time to offer information brilliantly packaged in such a way as to make complicated material accessible to s/he who would be enlightened, in the sense of taking what you have written and going to look up the primary documents for him/herself.
There really is no realm where prejudice, ignorance, and self-serving efforts to maintain the status-quo are not permanently at odds with the efforts of human beings to live with a modicum of liberty and dignity and freedom from scapegoating and oppression.
I am not a Christian and I am not Jewish but I honor my debt to both traditions in the creation of the world in which I have lived for 58 years. It was thoughtful of you to have written this post.
You're a mensch, Danny. And I admire your ability to continue to engage in dialogue when the opportunities for it deterioration are so great.
Posted by: The Pliers | January 13, 2011 at 12:23 AM
I should also note, to be even-handed, that I appreciate the debt I owe to Islam but am less knowledgeable about it, due to being American, than, let's say, an educated French citizen might be because of proximity and shared history with the Middle East and North Africa.
Posted by: The Pliers | January 13, 2011 at 02:54 AM
I have to admit, I'd never heard of "blood libel" before all this. It certainly doesn't mean what I might have guessed. (Thanks for the explanation.)
But if a normal person used it in a speech and only later learned what it really meant, they'd be apologizing... which I'm fairly certain she won't be doing.
Posted by: Rurality | January 13, 2011 at 04:43 AM
Danny, I'd like to reprint your work on the Blood Libel for my Haggadah. Can you email off the blog.
Michael Dorf
[email protected]
Posted by: Michael | January 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Palin won't apologize because this kind of thing is her stock in trade. She's not out to have a reasonable discussion or even a reasonable disagreement. Her success and appeal stems from keeping her admirers frightened, angry and awestruck. She always kind of reminds me of that other attractive charlatan, Amy Semple MacPherson. She may or may not have known exactly what 'Blood Libel' was before she said those words, but for her purposes all it does is rachet up the controversy, which sells her product. Look, here we are talking (sort of) about her when if she hadn't uttered that phrase millions of pixels would have been spared.
Posted by: DebbieW | January 14, 2011 at 01:34 PM
Danny –
That was a terrific overview of why the term “blood libel” should hit a nerve for every Jew in the world. But, that said, so what?
Jews don’t own the term any more than gentiles own the word crucifixion or Moslems own the word Jihad. Common usage (or popular culture, if you prefer) have “universalized” these terms.
I think the LAST THING in the world Sarah Palin wanted to do was make any association with Jewish history; she used a term that SHE THOUGHT described her plight: baseless persecution by institutionalized bigotry.
I dislike her, don’t like listening to her, and won’t vote for her. Isn’t that enough? It seems to me that in this day and age, crucifying her (note the use of the word) over a mis-speak serves no purpose other than to extend her fifteen minutes. Shouldn’t her time be up by now?
Posted by: Stuart | January 18, 2011 at 08:30 AM
Y’know, everybody needs to cool-off a bit. We’re all walking around with rabbit-ears. (The term refers to sports referees/umpires who respond to the fans). A few years ago, a low-level administrator in the Department of Commerce, I think, used the word “niggardly” and was immediately fired. It took a few days for someone to come to their senses and un-do the misguided discipline. The fire-or, (as opposed to the fire-ee), I am sure, acted immediately so as to not appear to be soft on someone using the “N” word. No matter that it was the WRONG “N” word.
Didn’t we just witness a similar instance regarding a black woman who worked for the SBA? A comment not only taken out of context, but a PORTION of a statement taken out of context.
We need to calm down. Just because news travels at the speed of light doesn’t mean we MUST react in-kind.
Posted by: Stuart | January 18, 2011 at 08:42 AM
Sarah Palin need to stop hunting!!!!
Yes!Gun control low!!!!!
The youth of our country indifferent
to politics・・・
traffic accident＞suicide bomb attack
God bless you
Posted by: ONISHI AKIKO | January 21, 2011 at 04:39 AM
Danny: Thanks for this.
Posted by: david | January 21, 2011 at 05:46 AM