'Blood Libel': Reactions to Sarah Palin's Words About Arizona Shooting Response

Where Sarah Palin goes, strong opinions tend to follow.

As such, it's hardly surprising that the former vice presidential candidate's release today of a video message about Saturday's shooting in Arizona has been met with a wide and varied response, largely focused on her use of the term "blood libel." While that term normally refers to the false accusations that Jews (and sometimes other religious minorities) murder children to use their blood in religious rituals, Palin used it to describe the public comments linking her and other high-profile right-wing figures to the actions of accused gunman Jared Loughner.

Of course, many of the responses were par for the course when it comes to Palin and the "love her or hate her" atmosphere that surrounds her.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, for example, posted the following comment to his Twitter account:

From human sacrifice ("blood libel") to Aaron Burr to the real victim here (her), @SarahPalinUSA proves we're lucky when she only tweetsless than a minute ago via TwittelatorKeith Olbermann
KeithOlbermann

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, meanwhile, defended Palin's use of the term:

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. ... 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.

Others took issue with the exact words Palin used but found themselves agreeing with her larger point.

At the National Review's blog "The Corner," Jonah Goldberg wrote:

I agree entirely with ... Palin's larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, expressed similar sentiments:

It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences. Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase "blood-libel" in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others.

Writing at The New Republic, in a post titled "Lord Help Me, I'm Defending Palin," senior editor Jonathan Chait wrote:

Okay, it's a little over the top for Sarah Palin to accuse her critics of "blood libel." But she does have a basic point. She had nothing to do with Jared Loughner. He was not an extremist who embraced some radical version of her ideas. ... So you have this weird moment where Palin is on trial for something she has no connection with at all.

So where do you come down on Sarah Palin's "blood libel" argument? Post your thoughts below.

More Surge Desk coverage on the Tucson shooting:
Westboro Baptist Church Won't Picket Christina Green Funeral
Jared Loughner Stopped by Officer Hours Before Rampage
Bill Maher Calls NRA "Assassin's Lobby" [VIDEO]
'Blood Libel': A Brief History of the Phrase Palin Used in Her Video
Making Sense of Palin's Media Strategy for the Giffords Shooting
Sarah Palin Talks About 'Blood Libel' in Giffords Shooting Video
Jared Loughner Mug Shot Released
Judy Clarke, 'Unabomber' Lawyer, Will Represent Jared Lee Loughner
Jared Lee Loughner's World View; A Conspiracy-Theorist Primer [VIDEO]
Poll: Was Sarah Palin Crosshairs Imagery Inappropriate?
Does Sarah Palin Bear Any Responsibility for the Giffords Shooting?

And, as always, you can follow Surge Desk on Twitter.