Photo by Roger H. Goun (Creative Commons)

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin continues to monopolize much of the media's attention in the wake of Saturday's shooting spree which targeted U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who suffered a critical head injury, and left six dead at a "Congress On Your Corner" event.

In a video statement, Palin argues the political left's response to the Arizona shooting has unfairly targeted conservatives, likening the response to "blood libel." Her comments, made a few hours prior to President Barack Obama's address in Tucson, immediately came under fire, prompting pundits to argue her timing was inappropriate.

The National Review's Matthew Cooper, however, argues Palin's remarks likening criticism from her opponents to blood libel were a deliberate attempt to rile Evangelical Christians. Here's an excerpt:

Some commentators speculated that Palin did not understand the import of what she was saying, an insensitivity magnified by the fact that Giffords is Jewish. "Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is or does not know of its horrific history," National Jewish Democratic Council CEO David Harris said in a statement. But, as is often the case, Palin is likely being underestimated and, perhaps, misunderstood. It's highly unlikely that she threw an incendiary term out there without knowing what it means, and it's even less likely she did so in an effort to promote anti-Semitism. Here' s another theory of the case: The former Alaska governor was likely trying to send a signal to her evangelical Christian supporters who are, in fact, deeply pro-Israel (although many Jews are wary of their support for the Zionist state, seeing them as more interested in the Rapture than a healthy Jewish nation). Palin was likely aligning herself with pro-Israel evangelicals by identifying with Jews, not by insulting them, although that was surely the effect given the widespread bristling at her remarks.

Read the full article here.

But Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, often referred to as America's rabbi, says that Palin's use of the term is acceptable. In The Wall Street Journal, Boteach argues the former governor has unfairly been criticized following the attack on Giffords. Here's an excerpt:

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder. The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.

Read the full article here.

What do you think of Palin's use of the term "blood libel" in her response to the Tucson shooting?