uhhh.....blood libel?

NYT this morning:

In her seven-and-a-half minute video, Ms. Palin said that “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make the video rapidly go viral, is attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

-----------------------
Let's analyze this. A quick click to Wikipedia, a reference check, and confirmation at the Holocaust Museum website allows us to use the following quote and references, and confirms NYT veracity.

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

1. Gottheil, Richard; Strack, Hermann L.; Jacobs, Joseph (1901-1906). "Blood Accusation" Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1173&letter=B

2. Dundes, Alan, ed (1991). The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0299131142.

What does the Palin statement mean?
Without critical analysis, and taken in the context of the video, the statement appears to be a condemnation of assertions, apparently made by "left wing" "journalists and pundits", that rhetoric from the "right wing" media creates a toxic, confrontational sociopolitical climate that has the potential to incite mentally ill individuals with a propensity for violence to engage in the violent activities expressed, either overtly or covertly, in the rhetoric.

Palin's accusation that "left wing" "journalists and pundits" engage in the "manufacture [of] a blood libel" is curious, when the definition of blood libel is considered.

What does the Palin statement imply?
The implication, or functional meaning, of the statement centers on the use of the term "blood libel". It is possible that Palin and her speech writers were unaware of the history and usage of the term, and meant to accuse "left wing" "journalists and pundits" of engaging in libelous activity. The word "blood" would have a topical, adjectival function, made more effective by recent images of a woman receiving a massive gunshot head wound. It also is possible they were making linear combinations of words, and noted that "libel blood" was meaningless, as were partial anagrams such as "bdloei" or "looeild".

It is possible that Palin and her speech writers were aware of the history and usage of the term, and meant to conflate liberal or progressive ideology with (imagined) Jewish ritual murder, thus making the sociopolitical left, or "liberals" an object of xenophobic hatred. This time-proven political/rhetorical tactic is called "blame everything on da fuckin' Jooozze!"

It is also possible that Palin and her speech writers were aware of the history and usage of the term, and employed it as would a provocateur, hoping to insert Palin into the news cycle. This tactic was used with great success when vaginal photographs of a panty-less Britney Spears were inserted into the news cycle.

Sarah Palin may have considered all three possibilities with the aim of increasing her visceral appeal.

click here