A Moose With Hoof In Mouth Disease

Sarah Palin's response to her critics included the phrase "blood libel".  Pat Buchanan thought it was "excellent".



The both of them really might want to read a book once in a while, because the history of that particular phrase is ugly.

Historically, blood libel refers to anti-Semitic accusations from the Middle Ages, when some believed that Jews made Passover matzo from the blood or organs of murdered Christian children. Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf told Politico, "The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews -- the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable."

The first example of blood libel, which is sometimes called "blood accusation," surfaced, as far as we know, in the writings of a monk. In 1173, Thomas of Monmouth wrote "The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich," which told the story of a young boy who was allegedly killed in England around Easter 1144. According to Thomas of Monmouth, the town believed that local Jews were responsible. Afterward, a Jewish man was murdered. Since Thomas of Monmouth was the only one to write about the story, we have no idea whether the events, or some form of them, ever took place.

Despite the questionable origins, the rumors took hold in Europe, lasting through approximately the 14th century. Some Jews were tortured, even executed, after being accused of such abductions and murders of Christian children; others converted to Christianity to save themselves.

Though blood libel allegations declined after the Middle Ages, they still cropped up occasionally, even in the United States: In 1928, in upstate New York, the Jewish community of the town of Massenna stood accused when a 4-year-old girl disappeared. It was Yom Kippur, and the police questioned the town rabbi to see whether the local Jews might have been responsible. Even when the girl reappeared, having been lost, the Jewish community was still looked at with suspicion.

The phrase was first used this week by Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Reynolds wrote, "So as the usual talking heads begin their 'have you no decency?' routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?"

In the National Review Online, blogger Jonah Goldberg questions Palin's and Reynolds' use of the phrase this week. "I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have," he writes.

And if you're willing to cross a line that makes Jonah Goldberg stop and go "You know what, that's a bridge too far" then you've failed.  Claiming a phrase with a long history of anti-Semitic connotations for your rhetorical defense of your words in the shooting of a Jewish member of Congress may in fact be Palin's most ignorant, boneheaded move yet.

Granted, she lifted it from Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, but he's supposedly a law professor, someone who should have known better.

Every time she opens her mouth on this issue, she makes things far worse for herself.