Libeling Palin

As a child of Holocaust survivors who was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany, I take issue with Ronald Florence’s contention that the term “blood libel” may not be legitimately used except in relation to past accusations against Jews that stimulated persecution and bloodshed (“The True Meaning of ‘Blood Libel,’” January 28).

Florence believes that its use by Sarah Palin as a “countercharge to criticism of heated political rhetoric” is wrong. But this ignores the fact that it was not merely criticism she was opposing, but the leveling of responsibility on her for the murderous rampage of Jared Loughner, a disturbed, apparently apolitical loner who is entirely unrelated to her.

When we speak of blood libels against Jews, it means one thing — a malicious, false accusation of evil-doing, designed to whip up hatred and hostility against those so accused. In this key respect, Palin’s use of the term was valid.

Your Comments

The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not and will be deleted. Egregious commenters will be banned from commenting. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.

Recommend this article

Libeling Palin

Thank you!

This article has been sent!