^{This is blood libel, from the Middle Ages--the Jew is the evil-looking dude in the funky hat draining the blood from a crucified Christian child} 

Sarah Palin predictably defended herself from her critics by both going on the attack, and assuming the mantle of victimhood.  This is pretty much right-wing shtick in cases where the right has been accused of something for which they know there is a valid case, but they don't want to admit fault so they go the "the best defense is a good offense" route.  (Karl Rove, of course, is a past-master of this technique.)

Palin's going to do what Palin's going to do, and I am utterly unsurprised to see her employing this trope.  It annoys, disgusts, and bores me (simultaneously, which is a good trick), but doesn't surprise me.  But what does surprise me--and Joan Walsh, too--is her use of the term "blood libel."  As Walsh notes,

I don't know what's worse: That Sarah Palin knew the term "blood libel" has historically been a cornerstone of anti-Semitism (it specifically refers to the gruesome lie that Jews murdered Christian babies to use their blood in matzoh) or that she's so ignorant she didn't know what "blood libel" meant.

Frankly, I don't blame folks in general if they don't know just how odious and over-the-top this term might be to Jews, so I wanted to say a (relatively) calm word about it.

"Blood libel" is the term used by folks to describe one of the many horrific charges falsely leveled at Jews over the centuries.  The details are horrible, honestly:  Jews were accused of stealing Christian babies, murdering them, and then baking their blood into matzah, the flat, unleavened bread that we eat (to the detriment of our digestive processes) for Pesach (passover).  It is similar to Catholic communion wafers, but somewhat tastier, and of course we've had several thousand years to come up with various recipes to make it better.

None of which, obviously, include using blood.

The ways in which this is spectacularly wrong-headed, and should crumble under any level of examination, are many.  Matzah is only used, typically, one time of the year, for example.  Or: why should adding blood to a wafer or bread be a good thing, simply from a baking standpoint?  But finally, and bitterly ironic, is the fact that Jews go to a lot of trouble to limit blood in their food.  Part of the method of kashering (making kosher) a steer, for example, involves draining it of blood.  (And salting it.  And letting it sit until you're sure all the blood is gone.  And . . . well, now you know why kosher meat is expensive.)  If one is making eggs and you see a drop of blood in the egg, you throw it out and even use a new bowl (or pan or whatever) for the next egg.  And so on.  A lot of trouble.

And the irony becomes especially thick because Christians did, in the Middle Ages, use blood in some of their cooking (animal blood, of course).  So you have folks who do use blood in their cooking accusing a minority who works hard to avoid that very thing of a gruesome and horrible crime involving their children.  

This is not just a lie, or casual slander; this is a vicious, heinous lie calculated to inflame the passion and rage of a group (Christians) against another group (Jews) with, as you might expect, some pretty nasty results.

So "blood libel" is not just libel--it is a libel designed and implemented in order to viciously and (often) fatally persecute a particular minority.  It is the kind of lie and incitement that is supposed to lead to riots, lynchings, pogroms, and the death of the members of the group at whom it is leveled.  A similar event was the publication by the Russians of the fake "Jews secret manual to run the world," the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which was published for the same reasons, and to the same effect.  (And for brevity, we'll just draw a veil over the Nazis and the Shoah.)

Don't get me wrong, now; there have been plenty of other groups at whom similar charges have been leveled which could reasonably be equated to blood libel.  Protestants have accused Catholics of doing the same thing, only with their Communion wafers.  During the Boxer Rebellion, many Chinese believed that Western gwailos were killing their children and . . . well, let's just say doing something really gruesome to them.  And on and on.  

That's "blood libel."  And it's horrible. 

What happened to Sarah Palin isn't even remotely close to "blood libel."  It's so far from "blood libel", in fact, that the only metaphor I can think of is to compare someone's house being burned down ("blood libel") with their neighbor politely asking if they wouldn't mind, because it's actually gotten to be 3 feet high, if you could possibly mow your lawn because, geez, it's such a nice neighborhood, and you're lawn is kind of an eyesore (what happened to Sarah Palin).

So like I say, I am unsurprised that Sarah Palin is being defensive and offensive at the same time; that's her MO.  But what does frost my country tuckus is her astounding arrogance (at equating herself to an entire minority group that has been persecuted horribly and marked for death), or her equally astonishing ignorance.  

So Sarah, really:  shut the #@(*&%$!! up about topics on which you are ignorant.  Because you are not a persecuted minority, honey, not packing that much heat, starring in a TV reality show, and commanding $20 grand a speaking event.  Honey, you don't know what persecuted even is.