VULGAR, VULGAR, VULGAR – AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  It is just shocking to the tasteless reaction of some people to Sarah Palin's fine, dignified comment this morning about the Arizona tragedy.

You'll see that there is already a controversy over Sarah's use of the term "blood libel," with some "commentators" suggesting that she's so ignorant she doesn't know what the term means, or that its use is "hurtful," or that she may even be a bigot.  This is really bad stuff.

The term "blood libel" stems from the ancient myth that Jews take the blood of Christian babies for use in Jewish ritual.  True, it's a horrible, degenerate and untruthful charge, a "blood libel."  By using the term, Sarah's critics charge, she's shown insensitivity to Jewish feelings.

That is nonsense.

Over the centuries, the meaning of "blood libel" in everyday speech has been expanded to mean any serious and untruthful charge that someone is doing something unspeakable to someone else, resulting in that person's death or grievous injury.  The fact is, the Israelis use the term all the time to describe the horrible libels against Israel, often originating in Arab or pro-Arab journals. 

Sarah Palin is one of the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel political figures in America.  She even has a small Israeli flag in her office and has been seen wearing a pin with crossed American and Israeli flags.  To suggest that she is insensitive to Jews is a new low, in my opinion.  Will her critics stoop to any level?

What is particularly outrageous is that some of these new charges against Sarah are coming from two British newspapers, the Independent and the Guardian, two of the most viciously anti-Israel newspapers in the world.   Gee, are they just discovering anti-Semitism?  I hadn't noticed their concern before when they printed the most wild charges against the Israelis.

It is entirely legitimate to debate Sarah's remarks.  Some liked them, some didn't.  But to bring this ugliness into the discussion is out of bounds.  No class, no taste.

January 12, 2011