Last week Sarah Palin released a seven-and-a-half minute video. Rather than respectfully taking the opportunity to offer brief and sincere compassion for the victims of the tragedy unleashed in Tucson, Palin took the low road. Denunciating critics, Palin sought to absolve herself of any responsibility for any possible influence her oft-heated rhetoric might have had over Jared L. Lougher prior to his attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, murder of six bystanders, and wounding of 13 others. Palin stated that any rush to blame her for the violent acts of one individual in purported conjunction with her supposedly fierce political rhetoric was an example of a media-issued “blood libel.” Such word choice continues to showcase Palin’s distinct lack of historical understanding and a disregard for clear misuse of language.

Seated before her stone fireplace – an American flag draped in the corner – she recounted the tragic events and cast her sympathy on the victims and their families. After about 30 seconds, her tone changed and I couldn’t help but feel as though I was beginning to watch something along the lines of an extended campaign ad. Thus began the list of “exceptional” American values that Palin holds dear, namely: freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. She refers to Lougher as an “evil man” and a “deranged gunman,” though it has not been determined whether Lougher’s actions were premeditated and or whether he is psychologically insane.

She expressed concern over how people are making “irresponsible statements” by casting blame for this devastating tragedy on her rhetoric. She quoted President Reagan and his sentiment that each American individual is responsible for his or her actions. Aligning herself with conservative America’s favorite former president’s position, she displayed herself as the passive victim in this blame game,.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” said Palin. “They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

The video should have ended at one minute, but Palin wanted it to be known that just because she had a website with cross hairs over swing districts – including Gifford’s –  it was her constitutional right to do so. She then, unfortunately, continued her exercise of said right.

“Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood-libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

For those of you unfamiliar with the term “blood-libel” here’s a quick history lesson. “Blood-libel” originated as a phrase coined in Medieval Europe as a deliberately false accusation that Jews would kill Christian children, and use their blood to make ceremonial Matzoh bread. This hateful and despicable charge was used to rationalize brutal violence and incite anti-Semitism against Jews during the Middle-Ages. The term is associated with a very specific and painful part of Jewish history. In trying to explain away the accusations that have been directed at her behavior’s irresponsible statements, she committed herself to one of the most irresponsible metaphors uttered in recent memory.

As to whether her use of the term has any correlation to Congresswoman Gifford’s Jewish affiliation – I find it merely coincidental – though it certainly doesn’t help Palin’s case. Her words will undoubtedly cause certain groups of Jews and Americans to call her anti-Semetic. As a Jewish American, I do not feel personally victimized by her words. I do not think Palin was inciting hatred or expressing contempt towards Jews. Rather, her words demonstrate a poor tact, adding self-interested insult to those who suffered on January, 8. The focus of the argument shouldn’t be on how Jews world-wide are responding to it, but rather on a more disconcerting issue: In the aftermath of the Tuscon shooting, why would Sarah Palin even take a victimized stance?

Most shocking about her statements was that they were a six minute defense of her own political rhetoric.

“When we say ‘take up our arms,’ we’re talking about our vote.”

You can think what you’d like about Palin and her political agenda, but I think everyone can agree that words matter. If  Palin is so quick to say that individuals stand alone for their crimes, shouldn’t they also be held accountable for their words?

Palin had even much to say about “foundational freedoms,” “peaceful dissent,” “civil discourse,” and the Constitution as a “sacred charter of liberty.” She reiterated the importance of these American values, and how 9/11 is a constant reminder. Five-and-a-half minutes into the video, I’m no longer watching a memorial for those who were viciously murdered, but a checklist of all the things that Sarah Palin thinks are important and the values that she feels she represents – stunningly inappropriate. It was insulting to those affected by this tragic event and it was certainly not the time or place for her to take such a political stance,

“In times like these we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides …We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy.

In times like these, perhaps prayer will provide some solace for certain individuals, but as far as overcoming mindless violence, my faith dwindles.

Emily Felder is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].