Friday, January 14, 2011

David Harsanyi: Blood Libel? Oy Vey

After all, how dare she?
Denver Post columnist and author of Nanny State David Harsanyi takes a relatively mild poke at J Street liberals in this Townhall opinion piece on Gov. Palin's use of the term "blood libel":
Jews, well, we can be offended like it's 1257.

If blood libel is really a distasteful parallel, it is only because we have intimately familiarized ourselves with the idea through a History channel documentary about the crusades. And if our institutional memories make us so thin-skinned, there are far more tangible reminders of genocide when we hop into our fancy German cars (which we do a lot, because we're in charge of everything). Or it is certainly as offensive as the heinous deeds of Sarah Palin, which include, among many other transgressions, talking.

And as Jim Geraghty of National Review helpfully noted, the term "blood libel" has been used many times by pundits and journalists from both sides of the ideological divide, including the esteemed Frank Rich of The New York Times, over the years.


Perhaps if self-proclaimed spokespeople for Jews everywhere like J Street focused on genuine anti-Semitism around the world, their little partisan cabaret would be more plausible.

Blood libel is the fiction-laden, anti-Israel Goldstone Report. Blood libel is the flotilla incident near Gaza. Blood libel is the Egyptian state media's peddling the idea that shark attacks were the handiwork of Jews and other state-run Arab media's blaming AIDS on Zionists.

There are plenty of genuine things to get offended about in the world if you're Jewish.

- JP

1 comment:

  1. the left is stuck on stupid. When ppl use the word blood libel, it should the the event of the blood libel that should offend ppl, not the use of the word