Sarah Palin Is Right -- We're Looking At A Blood Libel
01/12/2011 - 15:03
Jonathan Mark


Let's count who has been blamed so far by the Moderate & Tolerant Ones: Sarah Palin, the entire state of Arizona, the Tea Party, and let's blame all of talk radio, too, while we're at it, because the killer in Tucson must have been listening to talk radio stations in Cleveland and Philadelphia.

As Jon Stewart pointed out, blaming talk radio for the Tucson killer is like blaming heavy metal rock radio for the Columbine killers.

It's like blaming Paul McCartney ("Helter Skelter") for Charles Manson, or J.D. Salinger for Lennon's killer. At least Manson and Chapman said they were inspired by "Helter Skelter" and "Catcher In The Rye." (Both a perfect example of how a deranged person is capable of being "inspired" by "messages" never intended in the real world).

The Civility Police are only guessing when they blame talk radio, or blaming the shootings on anyone in Arizona who has an objection to an open border with Mexico.

In other words, according to the Civility Police, here's what it comes down to: If there is a violent, mentally disturbed man in Tucson, Arizona, something must then be wrong with every registered Republican, all of Arizona, (every Congressional district that voted Republican?) and whole radio stations, except for the politicians and the radio stations that the Civility Police agree with.

The Civility Police blame millions at a time, then change course when their illogic becomes obvious, and so quickly move on to blame millions of others. They determine their target and draw a bull's eye around it. (Come on, you'll never use "target" and "bull's eye" in a sentence again?)

Sarah Palin is right. She is being slandered. Nothing reflects the vulgarity of the national conversation over the past few years more than the relentless "hating" of Sara Palin, particularly in the Jewish community, particularly those Jews who flatter themselves as being tolerant, as the masters of civility.

Yes, articles, such as Michael Daly's in the Daily News, are exactly a blood libel, with headlines charging "Giffords' Blood Is On Sarah Palin's Hands."

It's just as reasonable to blame J Street every time a Palestinian kills a Jew, but of course, the Palin haters blame only the killer, and the killer alone, when a Muslem does the killing.

They don't connect Islamic killers to anyone, anywhere, but they blame the Tucson killer on "talk radio" hosts like Michael Medved, Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager. That's civil. That's insightful.

Check out George Will, and James Taranto, and Pat Buchanan and Jonathan Tobin..


If the vitriol in these comments is at all representative of wider US political debate then something has clearly gone very wrong. Viewed from outside (I'm a UK citizen), it appears really bizarre that a President who seems determined on compromise and bipartisanship can regularly be compared to a genocidal regime like the Third Reich and/or viewed as some conspiratorial usurper of the American constitution and way of life. I can't help feeling that so much of this anger just feeds on itself and is then used cynically to propel the political and media careers of certain individuals. And I agree that there are a lot of attacks on Sarah Palin but it doesn't seem anything less than the Tea Party and its supporters dish out. And yet there seems a determination to portray an increasingly wealthy and powerful movement and its leaders as a persecuted minority. As victims go, Sarah Palin seems to be doing pretty nicely out of it.
If a liberal had used the phrase "blood libel" in a similar context, Jonathan mark would be all over them. As it is he remains an apologist for Chabad, Kahane and right wingers wherever they are..Mark my words.
As someone who looks forward to the day when conservatives and liberals will go after each other on the streets, I am pleased with the anger that a simple article has provoked here. Each side is becoming more entrenched. I would venture to say that the liberals will run and hide when the civil war begins because they are all talk.
I couldn't agree more with you Mr. Mark. The evidence on the history of this young man shows that many people were aware of his serious psychosis, and thought he was dangerous. It's a tragedy that no one--not the school, not the parents, not the police--committed him for evaluation, and heartbreaking since each one of those entities could have done so under the expansive Arizona law allowing each one of them to do it. So, liberal columnist Michael Daly--the very day after the shooting--says Sarah Palin has Gabrlel Giffords' "blood on her hands." That is the very definition of a "blood" libel. Saying that Sarah Palin has Giffords' blood on her hands is the spew of a very sick mind, and an unfathomable and incomprehensibly deep well of hate; it is misguided, and misdirected. Since then, other sick liberals tweeting on Twitter that Palin should be shot. Now, in some twisted self-serving and self-absorbed perversion of language, they are shrieking hysterically about use of the term "blood libel." Apparently, liberals have not yet discovered the bottom of their depravity, so the rest of America will continued to be tortured by their downward spiral! There is no evidence anywhere--not from any source anywhere--that Jared Loughner was moved to shoot because of Sarah Palin. In fact, there is ample evidence to prove that Loughner became fixated on Gabrielle Giffords in 2007, long before Palin even arrived on the political landscape for most people. It's truly pathetic that liberals focus on Palin's use of "blood libel" when in fact, it is their own hate-speech that is shameful and filled with poisonous venom. The American people are not fooled or persuaded by the "blood libel" hysteria from liberals; We can see--and they are disgusted by--the Democrats' transparent exploitation of a tragedy; and it doesn't speak well for Democrats. Their fear of Sarah Palin is palpable. Their visceral hate speech about Palin is repugnant to Americans. There is nothing more repulsive than exploiting a tragedy and grief for personal, political agendas. That has been the Democrats' tactic this week, and it is despicable and disgusting.
I take exception to Jonathan Mark's comment; "Sarah Palin is right. She is being slandered" define slander; a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his/her good name. HERE is where we have a problem Jonathan Mark; 1. Sarah Palin does NOT HAVE a good name. 2. Sarah Palin is a habitual LIAR, and a PIECE OF GARBAGE 3. YOU Jonathan Mark are a IDIOT! [WANNA SUE ME?] 4. Maybe the AUTHOR of THIS ARTICLE should do a little RESEARCH before he makes LEGAL COMMENTS
Jonathan Mark scores a bull's-eye with this article. Like many, I like to read both sides of the argument. But it took me 20 minute before I found an article not bashing Palin on google! Guess its easier to duplicate news the rest of the media is pounding out.
This is the typical media freak show, with the liberals needing someone to blame other than the nut job himself. Blaming Sarah Palin for a mass murder in Arizona is not different from claiming that Jews use Christian children's blood for Passover. It is meant to demonize and dehumanize Palin who, for some reason, the liberals fear. OK, Gifford's will recover and the nut job will get the death penalty. Let's turn our attention to the homeless man with the announcer's voice. Now THAT'S important! Living in a world of fools....
Lets see what we have to work with here. A mentally unstable person who goes off the deep end and murders six people. A person for all we can tell that was locked up in an introverted prison of disjointed cognitive thoughts of the world at large. Who knows what events and thoughts lead to this tragic outcome, that is for the experts to determine. What is known is Loughner acted out with a determation of rage against whatever perceptions his unstable mind concluded was or needed to become the target of his judgement/conclusions. My opinion is he is a mix of a incoherant mind struggling with real issues of political dialog and the desire to be heard. In a truely sad way he is. One of the first things we learned about him comes from his youTube activities. His ranting about English language and understanding, most simply equate this to Arizona national position on Illegal immigration. Now several days later after learning more, iam not so sure he was solely fixated on this issue, it may have factored into the genesis of his actions, however I truely believe he was determined to carry out an act of political significance. Now, enters Sarah Palin. She writes some commemtary that uses a powerful and emotional analogy, that of the blood libel. Whether its use comes on par with the historical bigotery and injustice leveled against Jews is without question not even remotely comparable to the murder and grief perpetuated against Jews to this day through this libel. What is clear, however is she used it in context correctly, without crossing green lines that transgress into the arena of antisemmitism. I can not influence made up minds, just state my views and move on. In todays world we all have to struggle with limited ability to inject our desire to speak politically to our fellow man or women, we often have no other outlet than what comes before us in the news, it's humane to find acceptance in like minds and when crossing over into discussion with different views the defence mechanism of emotion rule the day. It is should not be surprising then as the media attempts to discern a voice or position to take on Loughner that he receeds into the background and political expediancy takes hold. I for one am not so sure he has receeded into the blackground and that smug grin of the lineup photo will be with us for sometime, laughing at us while trying to make sense of his madness of that day. Remember he must have thought long and hard with what to say, if you speak English, you understand English, you comprehend English. By this I am suggesting exactly what has transpired with the National attention given to Palin's remarks, that of the discoherant dialog we conduct each and everyday through the chattering classes of the media. The Irony is there is not a single source to cite where someone writes about this connection, the non linear connection of trying to put words into Palin's mouth while she put her foot into mouth was likely calculated to point out how the name of the game is to discredit someone in the public's eye. The while attempting to put words into someone elses mouth have we stopped to ask, just whos foot is being put into whos mouth.
Jonathan Mark: Your article is unacceptable and I am appalled by it. Associating the term blood libel with a current murder degrades the ancestors of the Jewish people by downplaying the severity of the anti-semitism they felt. Not only does your article belittle the suffering the victims of blood libels, but it also falsely portrays today's Jews as uncivilized and intolerant. Such accusations bring anti-semitism to current affairs unrelated to Judaism and once again strikes the Jewish people with unnecessary hatred.
With all the unfounded accusations against conservative talk show hosts and politicians, why is the most likely cause being ignored? For the past four years Nancy Pelosi has done everything she could to attack her political adversaries. After Gabrielle Giffords voted for John Lewis for Minority Leader, she placed herself right in the middle of Pelosi's target.

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.