Where is the "blood libel"? The film clearly depicts Jews sympathetic to Jesus. Sheesh, his entire entourage were Jews. Nearly every single original Christian was a Jew. The corrupt Jewish politicians were complicit in his death. Does any self-respecting religious Jew claim that Abe Foxman, Jerrold Nadler, Shimon Peres and Edgar Bronfman speak for all Jews? Does Al Sharpton speak for Black America? "Leadership" does not equal "All". Such paranoia is not worthy of the great state of Israel.
2. The Pharisses endorsed the Roman view that he was a dangerous revolutionary, and believed that by sacrificing Jesus, they could avoid the wrath of Rome.
3. The Jewish leadership endorsed his execution.
My understanding, after 12 years of Catholic schooling, is slightly different:
1. Jesus was a Jew.
2. The Pharisses believed Jesus was a heretic, and would have had Him stoned even before the cruxifiction, but Roman rule forbade captital punishment without Roman approval.
3. Because heresy against Judaism was not a capital crime under Roman rule, the Pharisses had to convince the Romans that Jesus had commite treason against Ceaser, a capital crime.
4. Pilate was unconvinced, but believed that by sacrificing Jesus, he could avoid a Jewish uprising.
Good point, but Shaas was voted out of power and does not speak for the great State of Israel anymore than the Green Party speaks for the United States. Over here it is a tempest in a teapot, other than two small articles on the side pages of the J-Post the Movie is not getting much discussion at all. There seem to be more pressing things to worry about.
Who gives a rip about some dude from Shaas saying the movie is bad when obviously he has not seen it. I tend to have little respect for knee-jerk reviewers opinions anyway.