A true story:
I was at this bar in New York, chatting up this hot Brazilian chick. I mean out-of-my-league-hot, smoldering with South American heat. The night is getting on, we've both had quite a few, we're moving closer and closer, she's running her finger up and down my chest, and then stops. And asks a question:
"Where's your cross?"
And so I reply casually, "I don't wear a cross. I'm Jewish."
The finger leaves my chest, and my Brazilian babe steps back. Almost recoils. And then:
"You're Jewish? But you...you...you killed Jesus!"
I laughed nervously. "Oh, c'mon - really?"
"Yes! Yes! The Jews killed Jesus, and you're Jewish, so you killed Jesus! You killed my saviour! I could never be with someone like you, a Jew! You have the blood of the Lord on your hands!"
A bit shocked, all I could do was stammer " But...But...It wasn't me! I wasn't even there at the time!"
It was for naught, for she abruptly turned on her heel and walked away from me.
That is a blood libel, my friends. The first, actually. And while all it cost me was what would have likely been a once-in-a-lifetime night in the sack, the true aims of the authors of blood libels such as this is much more evil than denying a Jewish boy a hot piece of Brazilian ass.
The media and the Left know what they are doing here - trying to make every conservative guilty of mass murder, and thus marginalizing the movement that will eventually strip them of power. By focusing on Sarah Palin, who they believe to be the brain of the beast, they hope to slander the entire Tea Party/constitutional government movement with a blood libel.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach explains why Sarah Palin was right to use the term, and why American Jews should be siding with her:
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.
Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices.
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group.
Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.
Beautiful said, and brilliantly argued. But I doubt many Jews will take Sarah's side, as they are less Jewish-Americans than Democratic Jews, their party loyalty taking precedence over the dictates of their faith, philosophy, morality, and blood.Odd that they should foreswear all to pay fealty to a party that engages in the same practices that result in hatred and discrimination against their fellow Jews to this very day. Let's see how they Democratic Jews react when the Left - in desperate meltdown mode as they see the 2012 election turning against them - reach into the 'ol libel bar for "an oldie, but a goodie..."