The article which follows was published in Il Riformista.

In the discussion on Ariel Toaff’s book Easter of Blood (edited by Il Mulino), printed, shouted out with a disputable media hurl and then withdrawn by its author, the first victim is historiography; the second victim the freedom of criticism, the third the free press. In the end the only winner is the esotherism of those who believe that the Jewish lobby controls everything. Considering democracies cannot allow themselves the luxury of conceding free press alternate days, it would have been better if the book had been left in bookshops – instead of ending up on sale for 350 Euros on online bookstores. Because there is no worse solution for the truth and to allow for a clear discussion on things and not on principles, from/on a much disputed text, lurking like Banco’s shadow, in the name of freedom of speech. I therefore have an explicit request for Ariel Toaff. Upsetting the final lines of his text, I do not expect Arief Toaff to redeem himself in front of the figure of Beato Simonino and repent, but to reflect on the consequences of his decision to withdraw his book and agree that such a disputed text (which completely throws historiography off the right track) should go back into circulation. At least to answer those who invoke freedom of speech by feeding on esoteric explanations on everyday realties, that the time has come, without beating about the bush, to concentrate on a reading which they have not done. To then, if they want, finally discuss “things”.

Because in a democracy discussion is not obligatory, but information is necessary. Easter of Blood has held court on Italian newspapers for at least the past two weeks. At first the discussion was on its content. However, after the book was withdrawn at the author’s request, the mood changed. Now it is the Jewish who are under indictment, with the conviction that the “Jewish lobby” has expressed an interdiction with regards Ariel Toaff and a threat to the freedom of public discussion. The term “Jewish lobby” has hence taken on a derogatory meaning. A new situation is rising from the debate which is developing, which we can summarise as follows: much of Ariel Toaff’s proposed thesis has given many the opportunity to reintroduce anti-Jewish prejudices; Ariel Toaff’s book is used specifically with this aim in mind; in the name of freedom of research, the authenticity of the ritual murders are recognised, as is the fact that the hidden power of the Jewish lobby forbids talking about them.

Let’s start at the end. Last Friday Ariel Toaff decides to withdraw his book from bookshops. Many believe that this is because of pressure put on Ariel Toaff by his university, and by the public position of the Jewish community in Italy. The effect is that the question exists whether it is acceptable or not to discuss Jewish history in Italy. How has this change come about? Let’s look at it in more detail. In his book, Ariel Toaff says that in some cases, in limited circumstances, ritualistic murders have been committed by the Jewish. The accusation of these ritualistic murders committed by the Jewish affirms that in the days immediately proceeding their Easter, the Jewish kill a Christian baby and extract its blood. Some say they do this to work it into a dough and make unleavened bread, others believe it is for therapeutic aims. It is an accusation which has led to the butchery of the accused and, in the meantime, to the construction of a devotional system with regards the presumed victims, who have been transformed into saints or the blessed.

With regards the book, for more than a week an actual “war among historians” has been ignited on Ariel Toaff’s correct use of sources, on the plausibility of his interpretative proposal, and basically on the sustainability of the contents of the book. It is a war which started even before the book reached the bookshelves, through reviews and headlines, somewhat disputable, in “Corriere della Sera” (6th February 2007). A war in which many historians have intervened (the majority admitting that they have not read the book) and only a few (the majority in “Repubblica”, but also in “Corriere”) analysing in minute detail the book’s content. Among the latter, not one – except for the initial critique of “Corriere” – found the book’s content to be plausible. On the same question, on the same days, the Italian Rabbinical Council radically condemned the book, sustaining that there are no practices in Judaism connected with the use of blood.

Once back in Israel, and convocated by his Rector for defending his book, Ariel Toaff decided to withdraw it promising to produce a new second version, having amended its errors, omissions or inaccuracies. However the story does not end here. Because once the question of the method and content was resolved, suspicion grew over whether there had been an intrusion of an “unauthorised” power represented by both the intervention of the Rabbinical Council, and the intervention of public figures of the Jewish world. It is at this point that the use of word lobby was reintroduced; the moment in which the book’s content was torn to pieces, not by critics of the Jewish, but by historians.

Why has it come back into circulation? Because its contents do not document what happened, but shows a judgement and morbid past thoughts about the Jewish; an image which has, in the end, only subdued, but not torn apart, which from the discussions of historians prove to be disillusioned, and that fears it may not have a new possibility of repeating itself any time “soon”. Not being able to use the hypothesis Ariel Toaff suggests historiographically – or documentarily – all that therefore remains is not the conviction of whether said hypothesis holds (if the book had been serious, the rabbi would have been able to shout out, infinitely, but the reviews which came out would have confirmed its authenticity); rather there is a new stronghold under siege which must be safeguarded: not the truth, but rather freedom of speech. In this way, no longer knowing what to do, nor which saint to dedicate themselves to, some reintroduce the use of the word “Jewish lobby”.

Let’s try, just for a moment, to consider this hypothesis seriously. So, if the problem were the fact that the “Jewish lobby” did not allow reading and the freedom of discussion, it would be enough to put the afore-said volume back into circulation. But this would not be enough. Because even if this were to happen, I believe that this would be seen as a defeat of the lobby, not as its non-existence. For various reasons. Because the lobby is a self-sufficient explanation. There is no need to demonstrate it; just naming it is enough. Because the idea of a hidden power which governs and decides the freedom of others is part of a mechanism which is not disproved by regaining freedom, if not, then precisely as a belief that this recaptured freedom is the outcome of a brave battle of the “ordinary people” against “powerful ones”. And lastly, because said belief allows for a deep-rooted idea, which is precisely the idea that the Jewish are powerful.

Nevertheless, if the mechanism of the belief and the accusation is circular, or rather if they support each other, the logic of the conspiracy has already won and does not need to be explained. But then again, as always, because those who have a conspirational view of history are already convinced “beforehand” of the conspiracy’s truth. They are exempt from showing it; they only have to obsessively repeat that it exists. In order to abandon this logic, it really is not enough to be ready to confront it; one must put it into practice.

A comparison which, above all, concerns historians, as regards sources and their use, deontologically correct. This discusses journalistic rhetoric, and it above all, questions the analysis of commonplace beliefs, their production, their diffusion and the inconsistency of their contents. To summarise. Ariel Toaff’s book has brought about deep anti-Jewish feelings in the society in which we are immersed. Over the years, a superficial coating (not altogether consistent) has formed, able to hold at bay with a lot of difficulty – and in this case has had no need to – the formation of new beliefs and urban myths which many had declared to have overcome. It is a delicate subject which would be even more dangerous confronted shouting and screaming, but should be used more as an analysis and survey on a cultural pathology, than as an ideology. There is too much morbidness surrounding the issue of blood, for everything to be just an interest to know “what actually happened”. Anyway – and to finish – quoting Pascal: “Do not say I have said nothing new. It is in a different order”.

Translation by Sonia Ter Hovanessian