I don’t know where the Washington Post gets off baldly asserting that things are true or false.
“Blood libel” is a phrase that refers to a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander – the false charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals – that has been used as an excuse for persecution.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate, more journalistic to say “there are those who say that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals, while others say this is not true”? You can’t prove a negative, so there is no way we can say for sure that no Jews have ever used the blood of Christian children for rituals. There is Christian blood in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Seriously, blood libel, what the fuck? Is there some strain of anti-Semitism in Palinistas that I’m not familiar with?