The 21st century’s first blood libel, it appears, was only skin-deep. Ariel Toaff of Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, an Italian-born medieval historian and the son of the chief rabbi of Rome, now claims that his new book Pasque di Sangre (“Passover of Blood”) has been misinterpreted. In any case, he says, he never really meant it when he wrote that in at least one case, that of the trial and execution of sixteen Jews in the Italian town of Trento in 1475, there may have been some truth in the medieval charge that Jews killed Christian children before Passover in order to use their blood to bake matzos.
To judge by his quoted remarks, Toaff seems—understandably, perhaps, given the fierce attacks on him in academic circles—a bit discombobulated these days. One minute he is ready to defend his book even “if the world crucifies me” (an interesting association in the context), while the next minute he has withdrawn it from circulation and barred his publisher from coming out with a second printing. And throughout it all he keeps insisting that he never had any inkling of the furor it would touch off. Although it’s hard to imagine a professor at a reputable Israeli university being so foolishly naïve, all the evidence seems to point to his being exactly that.
Is there a moral? Indeed there is. I agree with Alvin Rosenfeld’s point, in his controversial essay “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” that although any Jew has the right to say what he wants about Israel, every Jew would also be well-advised to exercise this right sensibly. The same holds true for what a Jew says about the Jewish people.
Even if (as he now denies) Ariel Toaff was convinced that Jews killed a Christian boy in Trento in 1475 in order to make ritual use of his blood, and thought it was his duty as a historian to go on record as saying so, there were wiser ways of doing this than publishing a book with a lurid title. Even in one printing, Sangre di Pasque will give the loonies, and unfortunately, some of the not-so-loonies as well, plenty of cause for believing in one of the most horrendous of all anti-Jewish canards. After all, didn’t no less than an Israeli professor, the son of Rome’s chief rabbi, say it was true—and wasn’t he then intimidated into a retraction by the international Jewish cabal? Had Toaff written a cautiously worded article, appearing in an obscure professional journal of medieval history and entitled “Notes on a 1475 blood-libel trial in Trento,” he could have staked his claim quite nicely to being a leading blood-libel revisionist while doing much less harm.
It is pretty clear that, even in Trento, Jews in the Middle Ages did not murder Christian children for their blood. It is also evident that Jews in Israel today are not “Nazis” or “colonial racists” practicing “apartheid” toward the Palestinians, as many Jewish intellectuals described by Rosenfeld are fond of saying. But even Jews deluded enough to believe otherwise would do well, unless they really do want to be ranked with the enemies of their own people, to think of the consequences that can follow from telling the anti-Semites what they’d most love to hear.
This is the best demonstration of the incompetence and callousness of Hamas. A real military organization would anticipate casualties, estimate needs, and allocate space in the “tunnels” to bring in medical supplies. One would actually have to care, however, in order to plan for this.
What?
You don’t recall the Nation’s campaign to help out those citizens of Grozny who survived its destruction?
Or the Nation’s support of efforts to stop Milosevic’s campaign of slaughter in Bosnia?
Or the Nation’s efforts to alleviate the suffering of Zimbabwans? Congolese? Afghan victims of the Taliban?
And what about the Nation’s ferocious campaign to assist the victims of Darfur? To prevent them from being victims?
Etc.
The editors of The Nation have been anti-anti-Communist for many decades, so it is not terribly surprising to learn they’re also anti-anti-Hamas, specifically, and anti-anti-terrorist, generally.
First the Zionists stole the country–having lost their religion, they claimed a right to it on religious grounds.
Then they ethnically cleansed thousands to Gaza.
Then they systematically starved (not quite to death) 1.5M people.
Now they are bombing densely packed civilian areas from the air, using American warplanes and weapons.
The neocomrades are deployin’ shudder-quotation inconsistently, it looks like, although the exact difference between a ‘tunnel’ and a mere tunnel admittedly eludes me. I recall a joke that involved “the so-called Moon.”
Anyhow, when J. Kirchick wants there to be ‘victims’ at Gaza instead of victims, he appeals (does he not?) to the maxim _volenti non fit injuria_. On that basis it makes no sense to complain of “callousness” on the part of the fiends of the Hamás — their human shields are volunteers; when they fall, it is not victimisation, it is _shaháda_!
Also on that basis, there can be no callousness involved in the aërial bombardment of a whole neighborhood full of fiendish Hamásniki.
To keep one’s eye on the ball!
Grumpy Old Man,
When do you sleep? These late-night postings, coupled with those “Morning Joe” appearances….How do you do it?
They tried to destroy Israel in 1948.
They lost. Nakba.
They tried again in 1967.
They lost. Nakba squared.
They’re trying again.
The Palestinian tragedy is that they have failed thus far to destroy Israel.
The Israeli tragedy is that they have failed thus far to be destroyed.
Sigh.
And perhaps I should add, GOM, how do you sleep?
The critic of Mr. Kirchick would be perfect if Mr. Kirchick did not make the same kind of error than « The Nation »: where are the words of Mr. Kirchick about the innocent Palestinians killed by the recent bombings?
« The Palestinian tragedy is that they have failed thus far to destroy Israel. »
Do you think really that the Palestinian tragedy can be presented like that? The Jews have the right to a State: they have Israel, and it is good. Why the Palestinian could not have another State?
Nobody can forgott the infamous terrorist campaigns of SOME Palestinians, the rôle of the Swiss Nazi François Genoud within the FPLP, the hate speeches and the hate bombings of the Hamas, etc. But why forgott the terrorism of the Irgoun, and the Stern group, the inutile bombings of Tsahal, etc.?
Without understanding the sufferings of the others, you can have no peace. This basic constatation is necessary for both sides.
The Palestinians cannot destroy Israel, but the interest of Israel is not to have Palestinian territories without State institutions.
I assume this is not a surprise to anyone. The left has always taken a rather objective view of Jew killers. And for leftists of Jewish origin supporting Israel’s enemy has always been a way of demonstrating one’s progressive credentials.
On the other hand, the previous posters have forgotten the obvious if tacit point that alone of all the peoples of the world, the Palestinians can launch wars or terror campaigns, lose them, and not have to suffer any consequences. No one is suggesting, for example, that Russia disgorge the territory it seized from Finland in the 1940′s…or, for that matter, suggesting any “right of return” for the 400,000 or so Finns who had to leave those territories.
I don’t notice anyone losing any sleep over that. Perhaps they would if the Finns decided to engage in a world-wide campaign of savagery. “The operation that resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of Russians was carried out by us, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Lake Ladoga. Only when our inalienable rights are satisfied will our just and righteous campaigns cease.”
Do you think really that the Palestinian tragedy can be presented like that?
Yes, Maxime, I do. They have failed in the past to destroy Israel. They are still trying. They have had a chance to develop state institutions, to develop a polity, to create; but it is more important for them to destroy, to attempt to destroy and keep on attempting to destroy than it is to develop State institutions. It is a question of priorities and of taking responsibility for one’s decisions.
You may say that the Palestinians are not monolithic, that they are not “they” and they are not “them.” I would say that while the point may be true, it is irrelevant. The Palestinians that may want to live side by side with Israel (assuming that such people exist) are not in power and will never be allowed to be in power. Those in power—Hamas and the Palestinian Authority alike—want to see Israel gone. The difference between them is merely how to go about making Israel disappear. A silly question on various levels: When was the last time you saw a Palestinian demonstration for peace with Israel, the two states existing side by side?
The Jews have the right to a State: they have Israel, and it is good.
Yes, I agree.
Why the Palestinian could not have another State?
Because they don’t want a state. More precisely, because they don’t want a Palestinian state if it means an Israeli state also exists. That is, they would prefer to erase the state of Israel rather than co-exist with it. Once again, it is a question of priorities and principles and, from their point of view, justice. They would prefer to suffer and fight, but maintain their principle of “resistance.” Moreover, they receive a huge amount of monetary assistance and support because of their suffering, that is, because they have so far not succeeded in destroying the State of Israel. They believe that Israel’s destruction is only a matter of time. They are prepared to wait, to fight, to suffer, to be subsidized and supported. Until Israel loses the will to resist, crumbles, is rejected by all the humanists and progressives of the international community (as well as the fascist Right and fascist Left). Until Israel disappears.
Nobody can forgott the infamous terrorist campaigns of SOME Palestinians, the rôle of the Swiss Nazi François Genoud within the FPLP, the hate speeches and the hate bombings of the Hamas, etc.
And yet, many people do. But they not only forget these people you mention. They justify their actions. And others extol them. They pay them homage. They name streets and squares after them. They hold them up as inspiring examples to be imitated. Not so long ago, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas praised Samir Kuntar. President Abbas (Israel’s partner in peace) was, of course, not alone, since the ideals of Samir Kuntar are the ideals of all those who sang—and sing—his praises. (If you don’t know who Samir Kuntar is, you can google him.)
But why forgott the terrorism of the Irgoun, and the Stern group, the inutile bombings of Tsahal, etc.?
There are several ways to answer this often asked question. 1. The Irgun and Stern groups were for the creation of the Jewish state and opposed the British and Arabs they believed were against the creation of a Jewish state. They did not oppose an Arab Palestinian state because such a state did not exist. 2. The Irgun and Stern groups were very much a minority of the population, in both numbers and ideology, unlike the PLO/PA/Hamas. 3. The Irgun and Stern groups did not become the government of Israel; that is, the government of Israel was not run by these terrorist gangs, very much unlike the PLO/PA/Hamas.
Without understanding the sufferings of the others, you can have no peace. This basic constatation is necessary for both sides.
Indeed, you are correct; and this is why Israel agreed to the U.N. Partition agreement of 1948. And why Israel agreed to offer . And why, after the 1967 war, Israel offered to return the conquered territories in return for recognition and peace. And why Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, and why Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000 and 2001.
And it is also the reason why there are still Palestinians. Any other nation on this earth would have, in similar circumstances, destroyed them by now. Just as, if the positions of the Palestinians and the Jews were reversed, the Jews would have been decimated, massacred, exterminated, thrown—as is still the wish of so many—into the sea. Just as Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah, and their friends are threatening to do, and feel certain of doing.
The Palestinians cannot destroy Israel, but the interest of Israel is not to have Palestinian territories without State institutions
These two assertions, though they may be believed by many well-meaning and less than well-meaning people, alike, are false. The Palestinians will continue to try to destroy Israel, even if it means causing harm to themselves—especially because it means that they will continue to suffer because of it, thereby earning the the pity and support of people such as yourself, not to mention many more millions of dollars of financial assistance—and Israel would dearly like the Palestinians to be able to govern themselves with institutions, constructively and peacefully. It is in Israel’s interest that this be so. And this is precisely why the Palestinians believe it is not in the Palestinians interest. Why, after all, would something that is in the interest of your enemy also be in your interest?
This may not make sense to you, since you, very likely, come from a culture which understands that both sides can be winners if they are willing to meet somewhere in the middle; a culture that believes that compromise is preferable to conflict.
To believe that this is also true of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, you must ignore, resist, deny the idea—the assertion—that the Palestinians want Israel destroyed, an assertion that the Palestinians themselves make. That is, you must believe that the Palestinians are lying when they say this, that their actions do not represent their desires, and that you know better than the Palestinians what the Palestinians wish for themselves.
I wish they would agree with you. But they don’t. And so many more will die.
Repeat after me: “Zionism poisons everything.”
The rest is commentary. Steal a country and you will become a thug defending it.
By now the deed is done. Just don’t preen yourself about democracy and moral superiority.
Did the Nation mention that Olmert allowed supplies to flow into Gaza a few days ago?
Did they note that Hamas has refused to allow victims to go to Egypt for treatment or to allow the Egyptians to enter Gaza to treat people.
And, of course, they probably failed to raise the issue that Hamas emplaces its bomb factories and its rocket and missile launchers in the heart of civilian populations.
What can we really say or do about the Nation? Still, we have to counter this stuff as a way of keeping liberals from wandering into the dizzy domain of the Left, with its distrust and animosity toward the U.S. and Israel, and the naivete about Islamist groups, dictatorships, the U.N. etc. One thing that has changed drastically over the past few decades is the attitude of liberals toward American power. Why is Joe Lieberman such an isolated figure in his party?
I’m actually surprised that The Nation would turn to the free market to get people to contribute funds and not ask the government to do all of the charitable giving. Alas, I bet the ironies escape everyone over at The Nation.
The Nation magazine’s perspective on the Middle East is suggested by its board member, Richard Falk. He is currently the UN Human Rights Rapporteur on Israel. He has denounced Israel as resembling Nazi Germany. In 1979 Falk was the author of a New York Times essay entitled “Trusting Khomeini.” It mocked the idea that the Ayatollah was a religious reactionary. After 9/11 Falk suggested Washington was hiding the truth about that event. Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation’s editor, is currently brandishing Falk’s denunciation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. So much for that magazine’s integrity and honesty.
Grumpy Old Man,
Just which country existed before 1948 that the Jews allegedly “stole”?
When Arabs slaughtered 69 non-Zionist chareidi Jews in Hebron in 1929, just what aggrieved them, the “naqba” of 1948 or the “occupation” of 1967?
As for the Irgun and the Stern group, they were founded, in part, in response to a campaign of terror by the Arabs in Palestine in the 1930s that killed about a thousand Jews. Yes, they wanted to get rid of the Brits, but more important, along with the Haganah, they defended Jews. I’m sure that the idea of dead Jews warms your heart, but some of us find it less pleasing than you do.
“Steal a country and you will become a thug defending it.”
This aphorism applies to every human society that has ever inhabited the earth. We’re all descended from thugs and thieves. Every last bloody one of us. Unlike most of us, however, Jews have a legitimate historical claim to the land called Israel today. The claim of the modern Frenchman to his country is much more recent, as is the claim of the modern Russian or Englishman. The claim of modern Americans — to either continent — is more recent still.
The Jews, with their uniquely identifiable and persistent religious affiliation, have a documented territorial connection that rivals those of Chinese, Japanese, Persians, and Chaldeans in longevity. We can note that the Persian, Roman, “Holy” Roman, Ottoman, and British Empires all stole the territory of Israel and became thugs defending it. We can also note that numerous land grabs have been accepted and legitimized around the globe over the last century (cf. Soviet Russia, for example), with little or no rhetorical inconvenience imposed by the Theft and Thuggery Police. Indeed, when Russia embarks on a land-grab, there is usually a predictable chorus from the Western Left (and its Amen corner on the Pat Buchanan Right) explaining in great detail how the grab-ee had it coming, after all, and moreover those accusations of thuggish rule are really exaggerations in service of a political agenda, plus of course, whoever was being menaced by Russia really WASN’T a true democrat, we know what THAT means. If you’re not a true democrat by the lights of the Nation’s editorial board, Moscow can have at you, with our blessing.
But not, of course, when the title of Thief-and-Thug-in-Chief is being bestowed on Israel (Indian name: “Always in the Wrong”).
History didn’t start from zero in 1948, and analyzing everything about Israel and the Jews as if it did is just silly.
Man, I envy JED. Not only does he know his s**t and can think, but he can write too. They drill them well in the USN. My hat’s off.
You have to feel a bit for Médecins Sans Frontières here. Getting a “human rights” endorsement from The Nation is a bit like getting a senatorial appointment from the Governor of Illinois.