Professor Toaff might have thought he was performing scholarly analysis and considered results for intelligent people interested in the period of his study. He has learned that years of study and a book length discussion cannot compete in the news cycle with sound bites and slogans. I have not read his book, and cannot comment upon his "revelations" beyond what he has tried to explain - and mostly failed because he can't come up with a sound bite or slogan. It has been clear from the start that he did NOT say the blood libel was a fact. Rather he affirmed it was a lie, not credible, and not to be seen as anything but what it has been deemed for hundreds of years. What he DID seem to say is that there may have been extremists who killed Christians, and that dried blood was used for medicinal purposes in Europe at the time. This is far from affirming the blood libel. Professor Toaff has learned that historical research and tabloid journalism don't mix. His mistake - a big mistake.
Firebomb thrown during demonstration in northern Israeli town of Umm al Fahm (Haaretz)
from the article: MKs demand the author of blood libel book be prosecuted