Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Last Shabbat, after the services as we sat down for our traditional Shabbat luncheon in the social hall, some of the members asked me of my opinion regarding Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood-libel” and the Jewish anger that we witnessed in many parts of the country. Offended Jews said that the imagery of the blood libel brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds” and demanded that Palin ought to “retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.”

While I am not a Sarah Palin fan or supporter, I think she should have used “scapegoat” instead. “Blood libel” was much too evocative “Scapegoat” probably would have offended less people. Sarah Palin’s use of gun target images for her political opponents and the murderous attempt on Gabrielle Gifford’s life exposed Sarah Palin as a petty and foolish looking politician. If I were Palin, I would have said, “This is a time for our country to mourn; for now, I wish to only extend my condolences to those families who are grieving . . .” Had she waited several days later and said, “Oh by the way …,” our country would been (perhaps?) a bit more understanding and receptive to her words.

Palin’s YouTube video showed complete thoughtlessness. Why in the world would she choose to release the video on the very day the entire country gathered to mourn for the tragic loss of human life? Sarah Palin was not the “victim” that day, those killed were. The Book of Ecclesiastes says:

 There is an appointed time for everything,
and a time for every affair under the heavens.
A time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.
 A time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to tear down, and a time to build.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them;
a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.

 A time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away.
A time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to be silent, and a time to speak.

(Ecc. 3:1-7)

This was not her time to speak, but it was her time to mourn-not for the media’s attack on herself, but for those who perished. Palin’s behavior revealed a narcissism that most people should have the common sense to hide.

Yes, Palin looked incredibly—and justly—foolish because of her mindless (and almost religious) devotion to the NRA. If Palin should apologize for anything, she should apologize for using violent imagery in her political campaigns. The glorification of guns is hardly the kind of thing Jesus would endorse. There was nothing “cute” about her behavior. But again, I do not like seeing any politican wielding a gun to get votes (like Sen. Kerry did in the last election).

Putting Palin aside, there is still a real question that needs an objective response. Is it appropriate for politicians to use “blood libel” in their speeches? Columnist Jim Geraghty in his sobering article, “The Term ‘Blood Libel’: More Common than You Might Think” shows the inconsistency of how liberals also use the term “blood libel” in their political discourse. He gives a number of interesting examples not covered by the media stations. [1]

Again, I must reiterate: if the use of “blood libel” is wrong for one politician, then it must be wrong for any politician–regardless of political party–to casually use this expression is wrong because it trivializes Jewish memory and suffering.

It’s amazing just how many people around the world love to identify their historical experiences with the Jews! “Holocaust” is another example of a word that is used in popular discourse without necessarily referring to what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews and millions of others of their victims, e.g., Roma, the Poles, handicapped, and homosexuals—not to mention the Seventh Day Adventists; the Nazis were unparalleled in the way they kept methodical records of how every Jew they murdered and how they utilized their skins and other body parts to make soap and lampshades. Pretty disgusting. One would be hard-pressed to find a parallel of this kind of diabolical science in any genocide of recent or ancient history. Yet, “holocaust” was used even by Yasir Arafat, who described Israel’s invasion of Jenin back in April of 2002, as a “Palestinian Holocaust.”

While the Holocaust is an exmple of genocide, not all genocides can really be called a, “Holocaust,” with the possible exception of the Rwanda genocide. In 1994, over 8,500,000 unleashed upon the Tutsi people of Rwanda were butchered in just a 100 days. Although the perpetrators lacked modern technology used by the Nazis, the methodical procedure was every bit as effective.

While Tea-Party people and Democrats may argue about Sarah Palin’s use of blood libel, while sipping tea or cappuccino, maybe the time has come for people to think twice about using blood libel in their political conversations because millions of people in the Middle East really still believe that Jews use Muslim blood to bake their matzas. I must wonder why the politicians–Democratic and Republican–and the news channels–CNN and FOX–have so little to say about this grim reality . . .

On a lighter note, many years ago when I had a part-time pulpit in SF, someone called and got outraged over a fast-food restaurant serving ham bagel sandwiches. She felt it was sacrilegious to serve a Jewish food like a bagel with ham and cheese. I told her that ethnic foods, once ingested, become the food of the nation.

Perhaps the same thing can be said about language; figures of speech and other metaphors frequently evolve from their original context. No linguist will tell you that words mean the same forever because they don’t. Readers may want to peruse “Brewer’s Dictionary of Fable and Phrase” and see how everyday common figures of speech evolve and continue to expand their meanings. Once used–like the story about the bagel lady–they eventually become the coinage of human speech and colloquialisms.

=========

Notes:

[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think