Up to now, I’ve had a policy about not wading into politics on my blog, unless we’re talking disability rights. I’m not much for political arguments. They take a lot of energy and, given how polarized we are in America, they’re seldom worth it. So I’ve limited myself to commenting on a couple of other people’s blogs about the violence in Tucson and how it came to happen.
But on Wednesday, along comes our illustrious Ms. Palin, who just can’t resist pouring gasoline on an open flame. And how does she do it? By invoking the “blood libel” and painting herself as the victim.
As a Jew, I’m beyond upset. I don’t even think there’s a word for how I feel. I’ve resisted writing about the tragedy in Arizona, but for Ms. Palin to invoke the blood libel, especially in the context of what happened in Tucson, is just so thoroughly insulting, ignorant, and counter-productive that I can’t keep silent.
For those of you not familiar with the blood libel, this particular piece of anti-Semitism, which originated in medieval Europe, consisted of the notion that Jewish people killed Christian children and used their blood to bake matzoh for Passover. It has resulted in the rape, torture, and murder of untold numbers of Jews over the course of many hundreds of years, and it’s a libel that is still alive and well today in various parts of the world. It has yet to expire under the weight of its own absurdity and, as such, it’s still a dangerous lie that incites real anti-Semitism, and real people still run the risk of suffering and dying because of it.
So, if historical memory isn’t enough of a reason to resist throwing the term around needlessly, the current facts on the ground probably are. Respect demands that we take care with the term.
But let’s get to what Ms. Palin actually said. In response to criticism that her violent rhetorical imagery contributed to the violence in Tucson, Ms. Palin quoth:
“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 that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Okay. Let’s parse this one out, because it gets confusing if you just try to figure it all out in your head.
Ms. Palin asserts that she is the victim of a blood libel, which in her mind consists of people taking her to task for her rhetoric. Can you say “entirely false and fucked-up analogy”? I’m sorry, but people getting on your case over your rhetoric is not the same as being accused of killing Christian children and incorporating their blood into your holiday preparations. It’s not even close. It’s like comparing a bad day of hunting moose with being put on a train to Auschwitz.
I mean, really. Does this woman have any sensitivity at all?
It gets worse. Who are the purveyors of this “blood libel”? Ms. Palin calls out the “journalists and pundits” who have been talking ceaselessly about this issue since Saturday. But guess who called out Ms. Palin on the dangers of her rhetoric back in March of 2010, after the infamous map with the cross-hairs was published? None other than Rep. Giffords, the target of Saturday’s assassination attempt, who said:
“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
Yup. Rep. Giffords called Ms. Palin on her rhetoric a long time ago. Does that make her guilty of a “blood libel,” too? Just because she can’t speak her mind right now doesn’t mean she isn’t being tainted by the analogy. I mean, does anyone think that, if she had the strength, she would say, “Oh, yeah, well, in March, I thought that violent political rhetoric had consequences, but now I see that I shouldn’t go around saying crazy things like that”?
Call me nuts, but I think the answer is “Duh. No way.” I think she’d stand by what she said back in March, right along with the pundits, the journalists, the bloggers, and anyone else with a shred of decency who, far from engaging in a “blood libel,” would like to see the violent rhetoric in this country replaced by intelligent discussion.
And did I mention that Rep. Giffords is Jewish? And that her aide who was killed, Gabe Zimmerman, was also Jewish? These are not just random facts. They’re central to the problem at hand. We’ve got Sarah Palin putting herself in the position of a Jewish victim of violence at exactly the same moment that we’ve got a Jewish man being buried and a Jewish woman fighting for her life after an assassination attempt. And Sarah Palin is comparing to a blood libel exactly the kind of talk that said Jewish woman engaged in last March.
So, in an absolutely stunning reversal of, well, reality, the logic of the “blood libel” analogy puts Sarah Palin (a non-Jew who is not a victim of violence) into the position of a persecuted Jew, and Rep. Giffords (a Jewish woman who is a victim of violence) squarely into the camp of the victimizers. And all this happens at a moment when the actual victims of last Saturday’s violence are either recovering in the hospital or being buried in the ground.
It boggles the mind.
Of course, there’s also the utter illogic of Ms. Palin saying that her words had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the violence in Tucson, but that people who say that words can indeed provoke bloodshed are themselves only serving to incite hatred and violence.
Which is it, Ms. Palin? Can words incite actual violence against actual people, or not? Was Rep. Giffords correct, or wasn’t she? You can’t say that your words could never, ever contribute to violence, and then turn around and say that other people’s words do—not unless there’s some sort of magic spell around your words that renders them merely annoying. Either none of us are responsible for a single word we say, or we all are.
I don’t know what to make of all of this. Is Sarah trying to become an honorary Jew? Is she unaware that becoming a Jew involves a long, complicated, years-long process of study and reflection? Does she need someone to tell her that you don’t become a Jew, honorary or otherwise, just because you decide that demands to tone down your rhetoric qualify as a form of persecution?
It’s all quite unbelievable.
© 2011 by Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg
Sarah Palin is an opportunist, and not a very bright one at that. She appeals to some peoples’ base fears, mostly people who have never learned how to think, much less apply critical thought to ideas that sound good t first.
I know. Her repeated disdain for people who use logic and critical thought really gets to me, too.
Thanks for unpacking all the layers of illogic here, Rachel, because I did indeed try to figure it out in my head and I just couldn’t.
I think the Times article on the issue unintentionally contained the biggest understatement of the year so far, in the sentence, “It was unclear whether Ms. Palin was aware of the historical meaning of the phrase.”
Yeah, I saw that, too. I’ve since come to the conclusion that, unless one’s ability to navigate the world has been severely restricted, being ignorant is no excuse for being ignorant.
“unless one’s ability to navigate the world has been severely restricted, being ignorant is no excuse for being ignorant.” –Excellent, ought to be a bullet point on the sidebar.
Excellent deconstruction.
Thank you, Kim.
Try reading what Alan Dershowitz said about Palin’s use of the term blood libel as well as Dr.Barry Rubin. He states that her use of it is correct. That modern terminology means a blood libel is anyone accused of fomenting or being responsible for a horrific crime. That is exactly what Krugman, the Jewish Democratic Committee and every leftist blogger started to do as soon as the news hit the air waves. Tuscon had nothing to do with anything Palin or anyone else said. it was the deed of a very mentally ill young man. To blame Palin is a blood libel. You don’t have to like Palin, most of her defenders on this issue are anything but conservatives or Palin supporters, but what they do understand is that the self-righteous use of Jewish terminology by the Left whose main reason d’etre is to delegitimize Israel.
By the way Giffords was not targeted because she was Jewish. She was targeted because she is a member of Congress.
[Edited]
Elise,
1) I don’t accept the redefinition of “blood libel” as used by Dershowitz, Rubin, Buchanan, et al. If you want to, that’s your right, but it’s historically inaccurate and allows our culture, once again, to be ruthlessly appropriated for ends that do not serve us. I’m surprised that, as a Jewish woman, you’d countenance that.
2) Paul Krugman wrote, and I quote: “[T]here has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has. It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.” Very well-considered, and hardly inflammatory. (Anyone interested in the full op-ed piece can read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1.)
3) To my knowledge, most of the people defending Palin are most definitely her supporters, and in any case, I haven’t heard any of them refer to Israel in any of their comments.
4) You’d be hard-pressed to prove to me that the left’s raison d’etre is to delegitimize Israel, since I’m on the left, and that’s pretty far from my intention, or from the intention of the people with whom I associate. I won’t argue that there isn’t anti-Semitism on the left. There is, there always has been, and there probably always will be, and I’ve spent a couple of decades fighting it. And trust me, if someone on the left used the term “blood libel” to paint themselves as a victim while people are being buried, I’d be all over them, too. But take a good long look at what Sarah Palin is about and who supports her. It doesn’t paint a rosy picture for the Jewish people.
5) I never said that Rep. Giffords and Mr. Zimmerman were targeted because they were Jewish. Further investigation by law enforcement will reveal whether they were or not, but in any case, it’s completely irrelevant here.
Actual hate crimes have been on the rise in this country in recent years – and it’s very political. Palin is one of many politicians on the so-called right who have fueled the fire. This has been happening throughout the last decade.
For example, “Southern Poverty Law Center statistics show that hate crimes reported against Latinos increased 35 percent between 2003 and 2006. According to the Center’s Mark Potok, the spike reflects the nation’s increasingly strident debate over illegal immigration.” http://www.npr.org/tablet/#story/?storyId=17563862
Thank you for speaking out on this, and educating us about the actual meaning of the words used in this twisted rhetoric.
Thank you for bringing up this issue, Isabel. It’s another indicator of the fact that words really do have power, for good and for ill.
Unclear indeed! I’d say she had no effing clue of the historical meaning of the word. She heard some smart person use it (probably incorrectly) and decided it fit the bill. The woman is dumber than a pile of moose droppings, and it will be a happy happy HAPPY day for me when she crawls back into her snow cave with her clan, and SHUTS THE HELL UP!
Her ignorance makes me wonder whether she has any Jewish advisors. It seems unlikely, given that most Jews with even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish history know what the blood libel is and would probably steer her away from it. Actually most non-Jews with even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish history know what the blood libel is, so there’s really no excuse for this kind of thing.
I have heard the term “blood libel” used by Jewish right-wing commentators to refer to any claim of murder by Israeli soldiers of Palestinian civilians (or their allies), such as the killing of Muhammad al-Dura a few years ago, which the Israel army claimed was a set-up assisted by a Palestinian cameraman. Over here, Melanie Phillips is particularly fond of the term. I believe Palin may have got the expression from some right-wing pro-Israel blogs such as Front Page.
That’s very upsetting to hear. I can’t stand it when my fellow Jews use these kinds of terms to refer to anything other than what they actually mean. It turns the term into cheap currency, and it disgraces the victims of the original persecution.
I think, though, that if Ms. Palin had a Jewish advisor, he or she would understand the uproar that using the term would cause right now. Even if the person countenanced the term in other situations, I have a hard time believing that anyone who understands its historical content would suggest that she use it in the current context.
I’ve said it before, (on AlterNet and other places), that Sarah Palin is gonna self-destruct, and by that I mean, she’s going to say something so foolish that everyone and their brother is going to say Just STFU! Even people who have no skills at critical thinking will know that she’s so wrong, she couldn’t even get elected as Mayor of Wasilla again.
She’ll be in the history books forever, as the woman on the losing ticket with John McCain, who made a big name for herself with the Tea Party, and then made such an ass of herself that she couldn’t show her face in public again. Andy Borowitz will say that she “pulled a Garbo”. Her name itself will be a joke.
[Edited]
I hope you’re right, Clay. From what I’ve been reading lately, a lot of people are starting to say “Just STFU.”
As if I needed more reasons to dislike Sarah Palin, she comes along, uses the term, completely downplays her own inappropriate actions during the election season last year (yeah, right, like we’re all going to believe that those gun cross-hair marks were actually map surveyor’s marks, as one of her staff is trying to claim now), and then gives a pathetic, whiny speech that doesn’t help anything.
Sarah Palin doesn’t need the media’s help in showing the world her true colors (as well as her ignorance); she’s doing a great job of that all by herself. Yeech.
I know, don’t you love that statement, “They were just surveyor’s marks”? I cannot stand it when people try to play with our heads like that.
I think she knows exactly what she’s doing, and that we do well to take her seriously.
https://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/palin-and-clyburn-add-fuel-to-raging-fire-with-blood-libel-and-intellectual-deficits/
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/1/13/14015/8393
There are those to whom she makes all the sense in the world. She’s courting them, not the sort of people who come here, and by that standard she has a frighteningly canny sense of what to say. Her disregard for the rest of us is staggering, but I think it’s a huge misjudgement to assume she is stupid. She’s simply willing to appear stupid and give offence to those who would never vote for her anyway, in order to accomplish her goals. And she may yet have the last laugh.
Mark, I don’t underestimate her at all. I thought her eight-minute video, with the teleprompter flickering eerily in her glasses, was quite worrying. The twisted illogic of it serves only to underscore the fact that she cares nothing for reasoned discussion or for engaging opposing viewpoints. If she were just a lone ranger, it wouldn’t bother me so much, but she’s got supporters who take any criticism of her as an attack on them all. And as Bill Maher said the other night, when people use rhetoric like “Reload!” they’re not doing it at Dennis Kucinich rallies.
Ummmm… Bill Mahr isn’t exactly the king of calm and reasoned rhetoric.
Just sayin’.
Yeah, I’m not a big Bill Maher fan, for a lot of reasons, but in this case, he was right. I don’t plan to quote him early and often.
I wish it were possible to just ignore her.
Unfortunately, she’s very good at making herself un-ignore-able.
It makes me wonder whether there is such a thing, in Palin-world, as going “too far”?
In any rational world, this would have been it.
JoyMama, I completely agree. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that there will be other such instances.
Folks,
Just want to let you know that I’ve taken to editing a couple of comments (one from the right and one from the left) in order to keep things on topic and to reduce the level of potentially inflammatory language. I’m aware that this is a sensitive topic and as much as possible, I’m going to keep the discussion on point. I will delete your comment entirely if you’re unhappy with how I’ve edited it, but I’m not negotiating with anyone about my standards on this blog.
Thanks,
Rachel
I appreciate your speaking out in this post, and being so careful about when and where and why you edit comments.
you build trust.
Thank you, Ben!
Hi Rachel,
When I started reading this post I felt sick. I am sorry to hear that Sarah Palin was so insensitive. My hope and prayer is that this will spark discussions that will result in many more people becoming aware of the atrocities in our history.
I fear that if we play with the historical meaning, we risk trivializing it, and we lose the opportunity to learn from history.
Shalom,
your friend,
Bruce
I agree, Bruce. Playing with historical meanings can empty them of their significance and power, especially when one group of people appropriates a term that is so saturated with meaning for another group.
ARGH! Thanks Rachel…. That whole controversy just slid right by me, and now I am even more disgusted by Sarah Palin than ever. Which is probably the understatement of the year . I had never heard of the term blood libel before. And I’m Jewish. (Is there somewhere I should have heard of it?) So while I thought Palin’s speech was just awful – when one of th commmentators asked another on CNN what he thought of it he said “This is a family network, so I can’t tell you what I’m really thinking” – I totally did not gt the blood libel thing. My mouth is literally wide open now. Where did this myth ever come from??? If it wasn;t so serious and true Id be laughing. Jews use Christian kids’ blood for matzoh?? What??? I fear even more for the sanity of this country if there is even one person yt who still believes that.
The blood libel myth came out of anti-Semitism so severe that it’s difficult for us in this time and place to really imagine it. Jews were considered less than human, the Devil incarnate, and the source of all evil. Along with the blood libel, many people blamed Jews for poisoning wells during times of plague and other sickness. Basically, we were the scapegoats when things went wrong, and I don’t mean that the result was just harsh political rhetoric flying in our direction. There’s a reason that you and I are in the US; our ancestors ran for their lives to get here after many centuries of persecution.
So for someone who doesn’t come from that history to throw the term around, especially for political ends, is just anathema to me. I’d feel exactly the same way if Ms. Palin had used any variations of the word “lynching.” There are some places you just don’t go. But then again, someone who tells her constituents “Don’t retreat…Reload!” probably doesn’t have a real clear sense of where the boundaries of civility lie.
I’m not sure how many people in this country actually believe the blood libel anymore, but I’d imagine there are a few–the same ones who think we own everything. So absurd. Thankfully, they’re a tiny minority.
I was shocked when Sarah Palin said that, especially considering how open a Jew Gabrielle Giffords was.
She’s responding to sounds now, and I’m so glad.
I read your writing by the way, and I’m usually amazed and often touched or outright heartened. It’s like clarion music.
I’m amazed at how well Gabrielle Giffords is recovering. When it first happened, everyone seemed to think that she had little chance of making it. Now, it seems that she’s really fighting and doing better than anyone had dared to hope.
Thank you for your kind words about my writing, Cereus-Sphinx.
Rachel,
Thank you for posting this. I was not familiar with the term blood libel either, but I was still appalled that Palin was not willing to apologize for her remarks. I should not be surprised anymore with some of the blatant meanness in our society, but I still am.
BTW, I placed a link to your site in my post tonight. I hope you don’t mine.
Aloha,
Sue
Hi Sue, I’m with you. The meanness and cruelties that people visit on each other really shock me, and I think that’s a good thing. Like you, I’m not getting desensitized.
And of course, you are always welcome to link to my posts!
Thanks Rachel!
[...] about the big stuff—war, poverty, civil rights violations, hatred, bigotry, violence, and people who throw around terms like blood libel when they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. No. Those are the things that [...]