Sarah Palin used the term Blood Libel, in defending herself against accusations that she is responsible for the actions of the obviously mentally disturbed shooter in Tucson. Her frenzied distractors have seized upon the opportunity to now pronounce that she has offended Jews, by using a term long associated with anti-semitism. The Huffington Post quotes Jewish groups and rabbis so offended. They omit the fact that these groups and rabbis are so leftist, that they are also critical of Israel. Sarah Palin certainly was libeled by accusations that actions on her part, resulted in the recent horror. Reasonable Jews are not offended by her use of the term. Holocaust is now a widely used term in regard to mass violence. Reasonable people reject the concept of scapegoats, whether it's Jews or Sarah Palin.
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
Alan Dershowitz, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor