“Blood Libel”: Is Sarah Palin An Anti-Semite?

After days of unusual silence, Sarah Palin released a video addressing the tragic events in Tucson.  In a carefully crafted, well produced, and scripted statement, Palin uses the term ‘Blood Libel’ to explain concerns voiced through the media about how calls for violent action by the right, disguised as political rhetoric, may have contributed to the attempted assassination of Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

While the motivation for the use of this term is unclear, the fact that it was included after days of deliberation, in a carefully scripted press release, is cause for investigation.

The term ‘Blood Libel‘ commonly refers to a false, and sensationalized, accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children to use their blood for various ‘medicinal’ purposes, or to prepare the passover bread Matzoth (unleavened bread).  It is also charged that Jews perform this ‘Blood Libel” out of vengeance against Christians.

In her video, Palin States:

“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.”

While it is difficult to ascertain precisely what Palin’s intentions were, in carefully choosing these words for her script, it can be certain that the meaning must have import to her.  As a self described fundamentalist Christian, her beliefs regarding the imminent return of Jesus, and the killing of all non-repentant Jews upon his return, is well known.  However, what is much less clear is whether or not she is trying to make a statement about supposed Jewish run media, or a supposed left-wing/ Jewish alliances, as it was these that she seemed to be targeting with this comment.

Regardless, Palin’s ramblings are often confused, and disjointed, and she has often misused terms, and even invented new ones, to suit her purposes.  This may well be the case in this situation, however, the burden for clarification lies squarely with her and her ‘camp.’   An excited utterance is one thing, a carefully scripted use of such an inflammatory term is quite another.


16 Responses to “Blood Libel”: Is Sarah Palin An Anti-Semite?

  1. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Daniel
    January 12, 2011 at 10:42 am

    “As a self described fundamentalist Christian, her beliefs regarding the imminent return of Jesus, and killing of all non-repentant Jews upon his return, is well known.”

    Wow. I didn’t realize you lefties are so ignorant. The entire nation is LAUGHING AT YOU. Official research is now showing that 58% believe that the Arizona tragedy was a lone act of violence, not politically associated or motivated.

    You are grabbing at straws and letting your blind hate of such a powerful woman cloud your thinking and common sense.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1Liam Fox
      January 12, 2011 at 10:47 am

      Your comment has nothing to do with the topic of this article, and your claim to ‘official research’ regarding the topic that this article is NOT about is completely unsubstantiated.

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Cheech
        January 12, 2011 at 6:11 pm


        What are you, the Nazi censorship cop? Please let all americans state their opinion. My god man, get a grip. Tx

        • -2 Vote -1 Vote +1Howling Winds
          January 13, 2011 at 11:48 am

          Close. Very little difference in the long run between the Communists and the Nazis. Remember Goebels words “..we (the Nazis) we would rather go down with the Reds than to side with the capitalists…”

    • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Tomas
      January 12, 2011 at 10:35 pm

      Daniel, I am still trying to find something in your comment that addresses, to some extent, or engages, in any fashion, the piece of the article you quote. Maybe that goes in line with the rest of your post. As for the “official research,” do you mean the news running on Fox, based on an ABC interview of a guy who was friends with the shooter, but stopped talking to him 2 years ago? News that conveniently fail to report his safe-kept notes on “assassination,” and “Giffords”?
      Unbelievable that anybody can be laughing about any of this, anyway.

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Howling Winds
        January 13, 2011 at 10:34 am

        Not laughing about the event itself; rather some are laughing at the antics and response of the left, who are now using a version of collective guilt to condemn millions of innocent people.

  2. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Zach DeMayo
    January 12, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Oy vey!

    Sarah, bubula, you don’t know from ‘blood libel,’ uh! Enough already.

    Schmaltzy outfit you’ve got on there. Nice clothes don’t make you seem Presidential in the least. Like Bristol told you on Twitter, you’re now part of the “lamestream media.” Collectively the country does not need to be alerted to your every fleeting thought and non sequitur.

  3. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Michael
    January 12, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Palin has already shown she is a racist, but this just proves again she does not know what she is talking about. You can always count on her to never take any responsibility and play the whiny victim.

    • -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Howling Winds
      January 13, 2011 at 10:40 am

      Please give us some evidence that Palin “has already shown that she is a racist”. By all means, I can’t wait to hear this one. I realize leftists are pathological liars, but this should be interesting.

  4. Vote -1 Vote +1Brandt
    January 12, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Way to go Sarah by stoking the fire even more with an anti-semitic remark. Instead of smiling and nodding while talking about murders and national tragedies, try having some humility. I was compelled to create a visual commentary of her political rhetoric and it’s effects on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-made-me-do-it.html. Drop by and let me know what you think.

  5. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1kristin
    January 12, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Sarah Palin is an Israeli first neo con who would send your children to their deaths in yet another unneccessary war if the war were to Israel’s benefit. Go view the fanatical zionist anti defamation league website and check out how extremely mild their criticism of her is. If you have a brain in your head this will tell you all you need to know. If a jew bent over in front of her she would gleefully kiss his butt and praise god for allowing her the opportunity. If she is an anti semite than I am the pope.

  6. Vote -1 Vote +1Christy Gould
    January 12, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Good article- It’s amazing to think nobody involved in the production of that video thought to change the wording. Cock up before conspiracy I suppose, but the lack of foresight here defies belief.
    I often wonder if there’s some forces in Palin’s own party who are seeking to derail her by giving her bad advice, with-holding good advice etc. As a feminist I feel concerned about the way we characterise her, while wondering if that very character is self-conjured to appease the mysogynist base of her party.

  7. -2 Vote -1 Vote +1Donnacha DeLong
    January 12, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    @Kristin – you do realise that it’s possible to be an anti-Semitic fundamentalist Christian Zionist, don’t you? A lot of fundies are Zionists, not because they like the Jews, but because they want a war in the Middle East. Why? Because Revelations tells them they need and JESUS IS COMING BACK!!!

  8. Vote -1 Vote +1Howling Winds
    January 13, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    What Liam can’t grasp is a very simple fact; words and phrases evolve over time, and may not share today, exclusively, their original meaning or intent. Take for example the words neanderthal, pagan and barbarian. These words are simply not used today to mean what they meant when first coined. Palin’s use of “blood libel” has nothing more to do with anti-semitism than someone using the word “holocaust” when referring to global warming. There is no way anybody can be this stupid, it’s just not possible. Unless of course, the writer knows better, but has other motives.

  9. Vote -1 Vote +1Howling Winds
    January 14, 2011 at 10:36 am

    A rabbi has written an article defending Sarah Palin in today’s Wall Street Journal.

  10. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Mo Maghari
    January 19, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Let me start by stating that I am not a fan of Sara Palin. I just think she lacks the political experiance. having said that, We are all playing a dangerous game of labeling. when someone disagree with us, or we disagree with their opinion, we rush to lable them as Natzi, Anti semetic, libral, communists, fascist, radical, racist …etc.
    I have to wonder what is freedom and how much we honor that concept. Both sides of the isle are guilty of labeling any body who disagree with them. Why can’t we discuss the logic of the opinions instead of labeling people. Political labels are a poor substitute for logical thinking. I do believe we take our freedom in the US for granted instead of embracing and honoring our freedom. Just remeber that in many parts of the worls ( I lived in some of them), people die because they dare to express their opinion. Abraham Lincoln said it best. He said ” Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.”