Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at the Wall Street Journal:
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
If we define it vaguely enough and stretch the definition a little bit, we can surely apply “blood libel” to a highly simplified and distorted portrayal of media coverage of the Tuscon shootings and right wing rhetoric.
To be fair, Rabbi Boteach does a very good job of explaining the origins and history of antisemitic murder that the “blood libel” myth represents. All the more disappointing that he has chosen to trivialize this history for partisan purposes.
Of course, the real problem with the argument is that Jews were not actually killing Christian children. The “libel” element is missing – no one is accusing Palin of doing something she didn’t do. They’re just drawing different conclusions than she does about what effects it had. I supposed if she wants to describe it as a “blood reasonable disagreement” I’d be good with it.
He’s largely considered a hack. Also, he’s in bed with the right wing xtian zion-o-philes. Basically, Shmuley’s a Shmuck.
Sarah – If he’s on the WSJ opinion page, his hackery must be presumed. (Nice alliteration.)
Chris K – Without straw men, the right has no victories.