Bloody Passovers of Dr Toaff – follow up

The storm caused by publication of Dr Toaff’s book Passovers of Blood is not abating. The tortured and almost crucified professor Toaff is forced to a new act of repentance on daily basis. Haaretz reported that now “He now wants to make it clear that the Jews of Trent did not murder Simon or any other Christian children for ritual purposes. Toaff will also make it clear that the blood of dead Christians could not possibly have been used, whether in food, beverages or for medicinal or magical purposes, because the blood traded by Jews and Christians at the time came from living donors, not corpses. His conclusion is that Jews could not possibly have murdered Christian children for their blood.” If they would turn the screw a bit more, Toaff would confess he murdered St Simon personally in order to place the blame on blameless Jews.
Israeli parliament (Knesset) plans to send Dr Toaff to jail. Holocaust denial is already criminal offence; but denial of Trent horror is a duty. Negationist, or denier, is now a term for a Jew who denies the blood sacrifices. This and other interesting items are available in Italian in http://www.mastermatteimedioriente.it/pdf/toaff.pdf on the site of our daring Italian friend Claudio Moffa.

“A research study like this, published supposedly in the name of academic freedom, erodes the moral validity of banning Holocaust denial,” said Dr. Ron Breiman, a member of the right-wing Professors for a Strong Israel. “Even if factually, Toaff's study is correct, it is not good for Jews” and thus should not take place.

Why Toaff’s research is important? Black magic blood rituals were practiced by Jews and non-Jews alike in the Middle Ages and later on. Michael Pellivert correctly if cynically said “And supposing they did drink blood?” The Jews want to feel superior: everybody may be reminded of a fault or a crime committed by his ancestors, but the Jews have to feel themselves some holy Ubermensch. However, the Jews lose in comparison.

The difference between Jew and non-Jew is that non-Jew would not have the protection of his community. For a non-Jewish murderous sorcerer, nobody will go to bribe bishops and curia, kings and judges. A Jewish murderer – whether a sorcerer or a plain mass killer like Sharon – will always be protected by the Jewish community. His crime will be denied or minimised, while crimes towards Jews are capitalised.

The study of Dr Toaff may help our friends over-involved with the Holocaust narrative to see the light. This narrative is a means de-jour of proclaiming eternal suffering of Jews and of causing guilt feelings among the goyim. When one reads Jewish and Judeophile pre-war texts, one notices that the place presently occupied by the Holocaust was not vacant; it was taken by other narratives: by pogroms in Russia, by Dreifus trials, by inquisition, by expulsion from Spain, by destruction of the Temple and to a great extent by “blood libel”. These narratives caused creation of counter-narratives: the narrative of pogroms was successfully debunked by Kozhinov, etc. and now the “blood libel” was countered by Dr Toaff and Dr Yuval.

In a funny spoof blog http://dannysteinberg.blogspot.com/ there is a proposal how should one deal with any reference to such misdeed: If a goy ever brings it up again, charge him with anti-semitism. Give him that withering sanctimonious glare and say "You are bringing up that old anti-semitic canard, again? Next you will be quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! How long must we suffer at your hands?" HAHAHA. Always mention the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". That really shames 'em.

Jews are not free to enquire, unless their enquiries lead to the Good for Jews. And what is it is not good for Jews, asked Lily Galili in Haaretz:

It would have been far easier to dismiss the book if the author had been Christian. Then the dilemma could have quickly been solved by branding the scholar an anti-Semite. It's also easy to dispense with radical Diaspora Jews who not only attack Israel's policies but also sometimes challenge its very right to exist. They can simply be dubbed self-hating Jews. The matter becomes much more complicated when a Jewish scholar from a religious Jewish university touches on an issue that arouses primordial Jewish fears.

"I am less worried about the ramifications in Europe, which is currently undergoing a process of secularization," said Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Israel Jacob Yuval, who teaches Jewish history. "However, I am very concerned about reactions in the Islamic world, where a story like this could ignite passions and be utilized for other purposes."

Yuval, who totally rejects the possibility of any truth behind the blood libels, given the precarious nature of the Jewish minority's existence in medieval Europe, himself became a target for academic attacks in connection with this emotionally charged topic. In 1993, he published an article in which he argued that 12th-century European blood libels were related to Jewish behavior during the First Crusade, when, in acts of martyrdom, Jews committed suicide and killed their own children. Yuval investigated the way reports of these acts were distorted in Christendom, where it was claimed that, if Jews could kill their own children, they most certainly were killing Christian children. Although he argued that the blood libels were groundless and were merely a Christian fantasy, he came under severe attack from his academic colleagues. Scholarly articles maintained that he had made the Jewish victims responsible for the blood libels, and that he was desecrating their martyrdom. He later learned that people had even called for his dismissal from the faculty. Despite his own experiences, he does not believe that scholars should refrain from publishing what they consider to be valid findings.

Although Bar-Ilan claims it has no intention of hurting Toaff's academic standing, the whole affair raises the issue of academic freedom of expression in Israel. The issue became a matter of public debate in the controversy over a University of Haifa master's thesis. Theodore Katz, a graduate student, argued that the Israel Defense Forces' Alexandroni Brigade conducted a massacre in the Arab village of Tantura during the Israeli War of Independence. In a letter the commander of the operation circulated among the brigade's former members, he claimed that the "feelings of frustration and humiliation are only comparable to the emotions generated by a blood libel."
Some Israeli scholars maintain that researchers should censor themselves and should always consider whether or not their work is "good for the Jews."

Historian Moshe Zimmerman, a Hebrew University professor, has personally experienced such censorship. Zimmerman, who loves being provocative, once stated that the Jewish settlers in Hebron were raising their children along the lines of the Hitler Youth. To this day, he argues that the analogy was the product of academic research. The result was dismal. "My colleagues demanded that I be sacked," he recalled. "Although I was not dismissed, my possibilities of promotion at the university narrowed. In my case, as in Toaff's, there was talk that the 'university's donors are starting to get upset.' And that is certainly a threat."

Another interesting response is a lengthy article of Dr Ronnie Po-chia Hsia, a Yale scholar of Hong Kong origin, who penned a book on Trent Murder.

He begins with: “On Easter Sunday 1475, the dead body of a 2-year-old Christian boy named Simon was found in the cellar of a Jewish family's house in Trent, Italy.”

The Jewish encyclopedia says the child was found in the vicinity of a Jewish house. But the expert says “The child was found in the cellar of certain Jews”, and he did not get there by himself. However, the Yale man does not care about the killed child, and does not try to explain how come the body was found there, and who and what for mutilated it. He says callously: “Passover was indeed bloody, but it was the blood of the Jews that bore witness to a violent fantasy born out of intolerance. “ What about blood of murdered children, Po-chia Hsia? They were not Jews, they are not likely to be your employers, but they were human! How do you dare to deny their blood?

“In a series of interrogations that involved liberal use of judicial torture, the magistrates obtained the confessions of the Jewish men. “Po-chia Hsia builds his case on the word Torture. If the accused were tortured, their confessions are invalid, he claims. Tho’ accused “believed firmly that it is right that Jews kill Christian children and drink their blood. He want[ed] to have Christian blood at Easter”. It is all due to Torture, says the Yale scholar.

Po-chia Hsia misses the point, for the Italian state and church authorities of 15th c acted humanely by applying torture to Jews, for this was application of Jewish law to Jews, as the Jewish law approves of torture. So we were told not only by Alain Dershowitz, but by a Jewish expert on ethics, Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem, in an article with alluring title The Jewish Ethicist - The Ethics of Torture . He was asked: “What does Judaism say about torturing suspects in order to obtain life-saving information?” and he replies:

“Any person with life-saving information is obligated to reveal it (duty of rescue), and that the right of self-defense would justify aggressive actions to compel the knower to disclose his information. .. By failing to act the potential informant makes it possible for a calamity to occur. . . It is thus clear that the law of pursuit sanctions any form of bodily force, including mayhem, when necessary to preserve the life of the victim… In Jewish law, the hinge of the argument is the obligation of the informant himself to help others. In this surprising fashion, the sanction for torture becomes an expression of his humanity, rather than of his inhumanity. We are allowed to cause him pain precisely because we insist, despite his enmity, on viewing him as someone who has his own ethical obligations to his fellow human beings. “

Thus, the church investigators were “allowed to cause [the Jews] pain precisely because we insist, despite their enmity, on viewing them as someone who has his own ethical obligations to help his fellow human beings”. In short, “the sanction for torture becomes an expression of his humanity”; and Jews applied this norm in many Israeli jails, in jail of al-Khiayam in the occupied South Lebanon, and as advisers to Abu Ghraib. So what’s wrong with applying this Jewish norm to Jews?

The Yale scholar continues: “The pope intervened and suspended the trial. Appeals from the Venetian and Jewish communities moved Sixtus IV to appoint the Dominican Baptista Dei Giudici, Bishop of Ventigmiglia, as the apostolic commissioner to investigate the affair. The trial in Trent was highly irregular. The 1247 Decretum of Pope Innocent IV had prohibited ritual murder trials on account of the judicial abuses involved and the violence against the Jews. Dei Giudici's task, therefore, was precisely to see whether abuses and excessive violence were involved in the judicial procedure in Trent.”

Can you imagine that a Decretum of Pope or a Decree of President would prohibit trials of clergy on charges of pedophilia? Or trials of bankers on charges of embezzlement? The Holy See was indebted to Jews, and acted as their protector. The Bishop of Ventigmiglia was supposed to stop the trial, but the people did not allow it. Indeed, the elites were always good to Jews, it’s ordinary simple folk that suffered and therefore was hostile to them.
This story is not over for Dr Toaff who is being persecuted for his devotion to truth. This story is not over, because every inch of Jewish sanctimonious self-righteousness is used to pressure Iran and attack Gaza. These guys are not content with ruling American and European minds: they want to remain invisible rulers and holy martyrs. This should be denied.