In February 1840 an Italian monk and his servant disappeared in Damascus. Many Jews in that city were charged with ritual murder and tortured until they "confessed." The case turned into a cause celebre across much of the Western world, even becoming a factor in the major diplomatic conflicts of the period. Jews in many countries groped for ways to save the surviving prisoners in Syria and their own good name. A Jewish delegation led by Sir Moses Montefiore and Adolphe Cremieux was sent to the Middle East in the hope of discovering the real murderers. Jonathan Frankel assesses the affair as a factor in European and Jewish politics, as a chapter in Jewish history and historiography, and as the stuff of radically conflicting myths - myths that eventually fed into the extraordinary events of the mid-twentieth century: the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel. This is the first book since the 1840s to analyze the Damascus affair.

The Damascus ritual murder affair, in sharp contrast to many previous blood libel cases, did not go unnoticed; it provoked a stormy reaction amongst Jews and non-Jews throughout the Western world. It coincided with a ritual murder affair in Rhodes and in other places. The Damascus case induced the Western Jewish leadership to intervene, and spurred the mission of Crémieux and Montefiore to the Middle East on behalf of Syrian Jews. Although the mission failed to overturn the ritual murder accusation, it became a cause célèbre of Western Jewry. The mission was carried out at a time of a complex international situation and itself became a factor of international relations. The affair aroused mixed reactions in the European press, which sometimes upheld the blood libel myth or was ambivalent about it, and in clerical and academic circles. It launched both Christian "restorationist" projects and early forms of Jewish nationalism. The affair was mythologized in Jewish historiography, which has tended to see it as a turning-point in modern Jewish history, as well as in antisemitic discourse, where it became a recurring argument for the "truth" of the blood libel.