What ‘Blood Libel’ Means

In a newly released video, Sarah Palin reacts to the shooting in Arizona and responds to critics by using the phrase “blood libel.”  Watch the 7:43 minute video:

Palin states in the video: 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.

As I noted in my last blog post, clearly the few comments or use of a graphic depicting targeting sights could not be the single cause of the shooter’s motivation.  Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post outlines the issue:

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires. The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

Most people agree that the above charge is ridiculous.  There is not one hard fact that supports these connections. But, why does Palin need to respond to such reckless allegations.  Yet, she posts a video in which she uses the term ‘blood libel’.

Several people have commented that ‘blood libel’ is a loaded term and that should be used in rare situations.  The phase is one that falsely began in the middle ages with Christians who thought that Jews murdered non-Jews so that they could drink their blood. Over 150 documented cases of charged ritualistic killings (or blood libel) have been reported since  1144 CE. Here is a little history of the term:

The allegation that Jews murder non-Jews to use their blood for ritual or medicinal purposes dates back to the Middle Ages and has spawned many variants over time. Jewish law expressly prohibits the consumption of any blood. Nevertheless it was alleged that Jews drank Christian blood on Passover and mixed it into matzah, the unleavened bread eaten on that holiday. During medieval times two popes expressly declared such claims to have been fabricated. Nevertheless, instances of what has come to be known as the “blood libel” have persisted into modern times.  Blood libels have frequently led to mob violence and pogroms, and have occasionally led to the decimation of entire Jewish communities.

The first recorded use of recorded comes from Ancient Greece in which the Alexandrian Apion, accused Jews of holding a Greek prisoner captive and then killing him, drinking his blood and eating his body.  Truly, a bloody genesis for the phase “blood libel”

On the other hand, some have stated that we can differentiate the term.  John Tabin at The American Spectator states:

But not every use of “blood libel” means the blood libel, any more than every use of the word “crusade” denotes The Crusades.

It should be noted that Sarah Palin is not the first to use “blood libel” to talk about the criticism of rhetoric  in the Arizona shooting.  Glenn Reynolds at the Wall Street Journal said this week:

So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

Regardless of how it is used, the phase comes with some baggage.  Like those calling for political parties to clean up the rhetoric, we must be mindful how we use words because they carry meaning.  We may have the right intentions to use a word, or phase but that word or phase may carry profound meaning for a group of people.  We are free to use that word, but we must be ready for our free speech to become costly speech.