Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York - NY Assemblyman: Vilifiyer's Of Sarah Palin Engaging In Blood Libel

Published on: January 13, 2011 01:49 PM
Change text size Text Size  

New York - Statement By Assemblyman Dov Hikind in defense of Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”

“As someone whose grandparents were slaughtered in the Holocaust; whose parents survived the horrors of Auschwitz; and as the Assembly representative of the largest contingency of Holocaust survivors, I resent the recent attacks on Sarah Palin for her use of the term “blood libel” in defense of accusations lobbed against her by those wishing to lay blame for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona. This is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and malign her, and I am not a Palin supporter. I would argue that those who continue to demonize her are themselves engaging in a blood libel.”



More of today's headlines

Jerusalem - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged in writing that he would defeat Yisrael Beiteinu's IDF conversion bill should Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar agree to... Brisbane - Residents began a long wait Thursday for floodwaters to subside and reveal the extent of devastation to Australia's third-largest city, while upstream...

 

Total29

Read Comments (29)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jan 13, 2011 at 01:52 PM OyGevald Says:

Well said.

2

 Jan 13, 2011 at 01:53 PM Thoughtful Says:

The opinion and logic to somehow blame this horrific event on Sarah Palin and other conservatives, is as twisted and cruel as the event itself. Yes i stand by those words.

How dare these heartless inhumans in the media immediately, IMMEDIATELY, find balme at those who dare disagree with their political agenda? How low will they stoop? Have they no shame at all???? Disgusting.

And on top of all that they now AGAIN accuse Sarah Palin of using a term - in her defence - that's "offensive to Jews". Now they're suddenly sensitive to feelings of Jews!! Did they EVEN ONCE take Israel's side in the conflict with those Palestenians?? They have condemned Israel - and the Jews - at EVERY GIVEN OPPORTUNITY!! These same Anti Semites are now suddenly on our side. If it wasn't so sickening it would be funny.....

3

 Jan 13, 2011 at 02:05 PM getitright Says:

Fort Hood? an islamic terrorist trained to kill americans, glorifying himself for doing so is, whose fault?
??

no one on the right remotely suggested it was the fault of the liberal left or similarly thinking minds.

because the right doesnt do that,period

this is so stupid already,

making those that did nothing wrong defend actions of those they have nothing to do with.

i listened to palin, she spoke very well, and from the heart .the term was not used in any disdaining way. it was, simply put making the point that blaming others is libelous and when involving life and death may even lead to bloodshed hence blood libel.

listen if you care to and you will likely agree, best of luck.

4

 Jan 13, 2011 at 02:22 PM PUBLICSAM Says:

Got to give Hikind credit for this one.

5

 Jan 13, 2011 at 02:49 PM puppydogs Says:

Would love to hear Charliehall's spin on this. Charlie where you at???

6

 Jan 13, 2011 at 02:55 PM Anonymous Says:

Most of us concur with Dov on this issue.

7

 Jan 13, 2011 at 02:59 PM LouKay Says:

Right on, Dov!

The way the PRESS has been vilifying conservatives in general and Palin in particular is as my grandmother used to say, " Ah shandeh un ah beisheh!" ( a shame and a embarrassment!)

8

 Jan 13, 2011 at 03:06 PM harvey Says:

all good and well, but PLEASE stop using auswitz and the holocaust in every other statement...

9

 Jan 13, 2011 at 03:16 PM Tina1 Says:

thanks dov - just curious - why are you not a Palin supporter? why is she any differant then huckabee?

10

 Jan 13, 2011 at 03:22 PM avi e Says:

People are going to label me a vilifier of Palin for this, but I stand by it:
Even if in this case, there was no connection between Palin's words and Loughner's actions, one still must be very careful that there is no way one's words could be misinterpreted or twisted from what one intended. The beginning of Avos d'Rabbi Nosson ( 1st perek) says that one must "make a fence for one's words." It gives as an example God carefully scultping His words (where I don't remember--I don't have the text in front of me) so that the other nations cannot point to them as evidence against us. The message is that we also have to sculpt our words so that they will not be used or interpreted differently than we intend. Of course, it is not always possible to guarantee that, and in fact it very rarely is, but with something such as putting a crosshairs and writing "Don't retreat--reload!," and the use of the term "Blood libel" were extremely clumsy constructions which easily could be (and have been--by the Palin-vilifiers) be turned into something they are not. She, and every other politician, left and right, can learn from this the importance of carefully choosing one's words.

11

 Jan 13, 2011 at 03:25 PM John_Frank Says:

Well said Assemblyman Dov Hikind. Thank you.

12

 Jan 13, 2011 at 03:25 PM Erlich Says:

J Street -- a "Jewish" organization hostile to Israel's interests -- is the one leading the brigade against Palin for her "blood libel" remark, which means that her remark was perfectly OK.

13

 Jan 13, 2011 at 03:48 PM FinVeeNemtMenSeichel Says:

Reply to #10  
avi e Says:

People are going to label me a vilifier of Palin for this, but I stand by it:
Even if in this case, there was no connection between Palin's words and Loughner's actions, one still must be very careful that there is no way one's words could be misinterpreted or twisted from what one intended. The beginning of Avos d'Rabbi Nosson ( 1st perek) says that one must "make a fence for one's words." It gives as an example God carefully scultping His words (where I don't remember--I don't have the text in front of me) so that the other nations cannot point to them as evidence against us. The message is that we also have to sculpt our words so that they will not be used or interpreted differently than we intend. Of course, it is not always possible to guarantee that, and in fact it very rarely is, but with something such as putting a crosshairs and writing "Don't retreat--reload!," and the use of the term "Blood libel" were extremely clumsy constructions which easily could be (and have been--by the Palin-vilifiers) be turned into something they are not. She, and every other politician, left and right, can learn from this the importance of carefully choosing one's words.

Your thought are completely valid and would have been appropriate IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT and even then, only mildly chastising. I have a high enough IQ and mental stability to not interpret Palin's words as to inflict violence on others. I have a high enough emotional IQ not to be offended by the term 'blood libel' even if used by someone other than a Jew. I would confidently state that 90% of the population are of like mental/psychological health. My apologies to the remaining 10% of you, some of you belong in mental hospitals and some in prison.

This tragedy has been callously, criminally and eye-openingly manipulated by the Left to attack Conservatives, primarily Palin. The shock of this desecration of the deceased while their bodies are still warm and the disservice to society should nauseate any reasonably decent and intelligent individual.

14

 Jan 13, 2011 at 04:29 PM PMOinFL Says:

He is right that Sarah Palin is certainly not to blame on any level. In fact, this nut job probably didn't even know who she was. It is a stupid argument to make.

However it is not blood libel. I'm not offended that the term was used, mind you. Anyone who is should realize that Sarah Palin is an idiot who didn't know the meaning of the words. She often uses words she does not understand.

However, beyond the 2 or 3 journalists who made the accusation, why is this story important to anyone? Glenn Beck says worse things about people on a near daily basis. If I write a story blaming Palin for the floods in Australia will get attention like this too?

This is another Fox News driven story with little to no proof behind it.

Is there reason to have a discussion about how political discourse can impact people's behavior in society? Of course there is. Those discussions are probably long overdue. But nobody except a couple of fringe-left journalists said anything about Palin here. So why are the Palin worshipers up in arms to make a national issue? Take it up with 2 or 3 journalists who made the point. Why do the rest of us have to listen to this nonsense go on and on?

15

 Jan 13, 2011 at 05:00 PM Nobody Says:

Reply to #10  
avi e Says:

People are going to label me a vilifier of Palin for this, but I stand by it:
Even if in this case, there was no connection between Palin's words and Loughner's actions, one still must be very careful that there is no way one's words could be misinterpreted or twisted from what one intended. The beginning of Avos d'Rabbi Nosson ( 1st perek) says that one must "make a fence for one's words." It gives as an example God carefully scultping His words (where I don't remember--I don't have the text in front of me) so that the other nations cannot point to them as evidence against us. The message is that we also have to sculpt our words so that they will not be used or interpreted differently than we intend. Of course, it is not always possible to guarantee that, and in fact it very rarely is, but with something such as putting a crosshairs and writing "Don't retreat--reload!," and the use of the term "Blood libel" were extremely clumsy constructions which easily could be (and have been--by the Palin-vilifiers) be turned into something they are not. She, and every other politician, left and right, can learn from this the importance of carefully choosing one's words.

I'm sure you equally condem all of those who have whipped up such a frenzy against Palin that people are openly wishing for her death on facebook and twitter.

16

 Jan 13, 2011 at 05:27 PM Anonymous Says:

Back in March 2010, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords responded to the use of violent imagery and heated political rhetoric from conservative activists -- mentioning Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on a map over Democratic-held districts such as hers. At the time, Giffords said that people should realize such rhetoric has consequences.

17

 Jan 13, 2011 at 06:27 PM takeittothem Says:

the main point of blood libel is that it was a lie
so was trying to link sara palin to this nut job - another lie
good for sara palin and dov hikind calling a lie a lie

18

 Jan 13, 2011 at 07:49 PM Kanaim Says:

I vote for Palin. Who says the words "blood libel" belong to Jews anyway? Do we own the word "Holocaust" too? Enough of this nonsense.

21

 Jan 13, 2011 at 08:00 PM PMOinFL Says:

Reply to #17  
takeittothem Says:

the main point of blood libel is that it was a lie
so was trying to link sara palin to this nut job - another lie
good for sara palin and dov hikind calling a lie a lie

No. The main point of "blood libel" was that it was a lie specifically designed to push catholics to kill Jews. It was a call to violence. It was the basis for genocide perpetuated by the church.

The fact that at most THREE journalists blame (in part) this tragedy on the rhetoric of Sara Palin hardly qualifies. As I've said before, its like calling your kids' bickering "the Holocaust". It is just ridiculous.

23

 Jan 13, 2011 at 08:06 PM A Nelson Says:

Reply to #16  
Anonymous Says:

Back in March 2010, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords responded to the use of violent imagery and heated political rhetoric from conservative activists -- mentioning Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on a map over Democratic-held districts such as hers. At the time, Giffords said that people should realize such rhetoric has consequences.

And since there was no consequence of Palin using surveyor marks on a map, your point is?

25

 Jan 13, 2011 at 08:22 PM Anonymous Says:

So when you people were instantly blaming liberals because one of the books the killer owned was the Communist Manifesto, that must mean you all committed blood libel as well.

26

 Jan 13, 2011 at 08:49 PM hashomer Says:

Palin is toxic and she is culpable for her use of the crosshairs in the gun context of "reload" on her website. Can't the "right" wing take personal responsibility for their contribution to this event? Where are their family values? So now its not politically correct to criticize the right wing? Are they soooo sensitive? Hikind is 100% WRONG in defending Silly Sarah's historic misuse of the term blood libel. Her use of the term is either another moronic verbal misstep or an effort to blunt the correct attacks on her by throwing in this most unkosher red herring. Next thing she'll say something about Jews having horns...

27

 Jan 13, 2011 at 09:54 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #10  
avi e Says:

People are going to label me a vilifier of Palin for this, but I stand by it:
Even if in this case, there was no connection between Palin's words and Loughner's actions, one still must be very careful that there is no way one's words could be misinterpreted or twisted from what one intended. The beginning of Avos d'Rabbi Nosson ( 1st perek) says that one must "make a fence for one's words." It gives as an example God carefully scultping His words (where I don't remember--I don't have the text in front of me) so that the other nations cannot point to them as evidence against us. The message is that we also have to sculpt our words so that they will not be used or interpreted differently than we intend. Of course, it is not always possible to guarantee that, and in fact it very rarely is, but with something such as putting a crosshairs and writing "Don't retreat--reload!," and the use of the term "Blood libel" were extremely clumsy constructions which easily could be (and have been--by the Palin-vilifiers) be turned into something they are not. She, and every other politician, left and right, can learn from this the importance of carefully choosing one's words.

These words are not "clumsy constructions," but well thought out violent language designed to appeal to the 20% of this country which spends its days salivating in anticipation of the impending Armageddon. There is a reason that football and violent Hollywood movies and video games are so popular. Fortunate for the rest of us, this woman has less than no chance of getting elected to anything, and after Obama defeats her in 2012 we will never has to see or hear from her again.

28

 Jan 14, 2011 at 12:58 AM charliehall Says:

Reply to #5  
puppydogs Says:

Would love to hear Charliehall's spin on this. Charlie where you at???

Why argue with the groupthink?

Even Jonah Goldberg thought that it was an error for Palin to use the term. But then a day later he realized that independent thought was not permitted among conservative pundits today, so he walked back the criticism. No conservative dares to criticize Palin if they want to remain part of the chattering class. Everything is about HER. She will take the Republican Party over a cliff.

29

 Jan 14, 2011 at 08:21 AM Butterfly Says:

I do not think she knew what she was saying. She was trying to get out of one mess and got herself into a bigger Mess. She does not think before she speaks!!

30

 Jan 14, 2011 at 08:24 AM cowfy Says:

i'm not exacly a fan of dov but he's got this one right.

31

 Jan 18, 2011 at 07:51 PM A_Guest Says:

Reply to #25  
Anonymous Says:

So when you people were instantly blaming liberals because one of the books the killer owned was the Communist Manifesto, that must mean you all committed blood libel as well.

We were not "blaming liberals". Merely pointing out that there was as much reason to blame liberals as there was conservatives. In actuality, no ideological stance had any part in a deranged individual's conduct whatsoever, as pointed out numerous times, unfortunately mostly by conservative commentators.

True, some bloggers have gone off the deep end, but don't fall into the same cesspool by blaming all conservatives. Dov Hikind has alluded to this in this very comment: "... I resent the recent attacks on Sarah Palin for her use of the term “blood libel” in defense of accusations lobbed against her by those wishing to lay blame for the tragic shooting...This is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and malign her, and I am not a Palin supporter. I would argue that those who continue to demonize her are themselves engaging in a blood libel.”

32

 Jan 18, 2011 at 08:25 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #21  
PMOinFL Says:

No. The main point of "blood libel" was that it was a lie specifically designed to push catholics to kill Jews. It was a call to violence. It was the basis for genocide perpetuated by the church.

The fact that at most THREE journalists blame (in part) this tragedy on the rhetoric of Sara Palin hardly qualifies. As I've said before, its like calling your kids' bickering "the Holocaust". It is just ridiculous.

"...The fact that at most THREE journalists blame..." You need to look more closely. The majority of the MSM and numerous liberal commentators were assigning blame to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Republicans, etc. before they even had the correct name of the perpetrator.

True, "blood libel" has historical meaning and precedence, but most words and phrases have meanings that metamorphose over time. For instance, "queer" rarely means "not usual or expected, eccentric, suspicious, or nauseated" today. Palin's usage was to indicate something in line with: "unfounded accusation of murderous intent". The word "libel" on its own doesn't convey that sentiment. I cannot think of any word or phrase that does convey this meaning without becoming excessively verbose. If you suggest one, I would appreciate it, and so would Sarah Palin, I'm sure.

33

 Jan 18, 2011 at 10:17 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #26  
hashomer Says:

Palin is toxic and she is culpable for her use of the crosshairs in the gun context of "reload" on her website. Can't the "right" wing take personal responsibility for their contribution to this event? Where are their family values? So now its not politically correct to criticize the right wing? Are they soooo sensitive? Hikind is 100% WRONG in defending Silly Sarah's historic misuse of the term blood libel. Her use of the term is either another moronic verbal misstep or an effort to blunt the correct attacks on her by throwing in this most unkosher red herring. Next thing she'll say something about Jews having horns...

I have seen nobody on the left accepting responsibility for putting bulls eyes on targeted districts, have you? In the 2004 Democratic campaign, their posted map had the caption: “BEHIND ENEMY LINES: President Bush won nine states by single-digit margins. Those states should be ripe targets for Democrats. They are: …” It is just as illogical to blame the left for the use of this map (and numerous others) as it is to call Palin "culpable" for hers.

And you are adding to the confrontational tone as well: "Palin is toxic. . .", ". . .Silly Sarah's. . .". Are you to blame for the multitude of death threats Sarah Palin has received? Of course not. Your last sentence: "Next thing she'll say something about Jews having horns...” is totally uncalled for, inflammatory, and libelous.

If we are going to get into semantics and words that cannot be used in politics because they may cause violent reaction, be careful, because the list is long and getting longer. First on the list is "campaign" which is a martial term. Don't laugh, it is just as idiotic as "target", "aim", and countless other words used in political rhetoric.

34

Sign-in to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up
Advertisements:
Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!