Perhaps because of the complexity of the subject and the need for simple sound-bytes in the media, most of those dealing with the issue choose to use easy-to-remember aphorisms that stick in the memory. Per Ahlmark, the Swedish author and former deputy prime minister of his country, who volunteered to be one of the two co-chairmen of the commission, characterized the new anti-Semitism by its targets: while classic anti-Semitism aimed at the individual Jew, the new anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish collective, embodied by the Jewish state.

Ahlmark came up with his own aphorism: "The old anti-Semitism wanted to make the world Jude rein, the new anti-Semitism wants to make the world Jude-state-rein."

The other chairman of the commission is Irwin Cotler, the Canadian Jewish attorney known as one of the world's leading civil rights lawyers. Among his clients was Nelson Mandela. Cotler, a McGill University professor elected to the Canadian parliament, continued in the same vein as Ahlmark. "The new anti-Semitism sought to prevent the Jews from living as equal partners in the world, while the new anti-Semitism wants to deny the Jewish state the right to be an equal partner in the community of nations20 minority that suffers hostility from the majority. And the violence coincided with the violence in the Middle East - in other words, there's a clear political connection, requiring a new definition of anti-Semitism.

Another motive for a new definition is that there's a feeling among Israelis and Israel-supporters that the wave of political hostility against Israel has crossed the boundaries of legitimate criticism and moved into anti-Semitic territory. That approach says that the new anti-Semitism includes two different characteristics: the anti-Jewish one, expressed in actions conducted almost exclusively by Muslims, and the political, anti-Israel element, in which Muslims and Westerners are both involved.


`Auschwitz did not begin at Auschwitz'

So, what makes the events of the past year anti-Semitic, and what is so different about this new anti-Semitism from the old?

Melchior has adopted the direction Ahlmark and Cotler took, emphasizing the new anti-Semitism's focus on the Jewish state and not on the individual Jew - "delegitimization of the national existence of the Jews, in other words, Zionism and the State of Israel." In that context, he used another aphorism: "Auschwitz did not begin at Auschwitz. Not that we are in the same situation now, but Auschwitz also began with delegitimizing Jews, moved to dehumanizing them, and finally demonizing them."

But he also finds parallels between the new and the old. For example, "the stigmatization of Israel as absolute evil, which has no merit. That is reminiscent of traditional Christian anti-Semitism, which referred to the Jews as anti-Christ, enemies of the messiah."

Professor Dina Porat, who heads Tel Aviv University's Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, says the new anti-Semitism is not only derived from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but also from the socioeconomic conflict around the globalization issue. "One of the most striking aspects of the new anti-Semitism is its connection to the anti-globalization movement. Jews are prominent in the top tiers of world economic activity and since Jews have always been identified with financial control and cosmopolitan ideology, the enemies of globalization and the critics of privatization and unemployment created by globalization makes it easy to focus the blame on the Jews. " Porat points to the strange link between radical leftists, particularly in Europe, with representatives of Islamic fundamentalism, who found a common enemy that threatens to destroy their very different worlds: global capitalism invented by Jews. "In the Middle East, globalization is perceived as a curse brought by Israel to the region. For the Arabs, the New Middle East meant a a Western attempt to take over their world."

Melchior also talks about the strange coalitions of the new anti-Semitism, though he characterizes them as mostly political. "In the U.S., for example, there is striking cooperation, especially through anti-Semitic Web sites, between neo-Nazis and Islamic fundamentalists. After 9/11, both groups claimed Jews were behind the attacks. That's not a new phenomenon. A few years ago, it was discovered that the Iraqi embassy in Sweden had financed neo-Nazi activities, even though neo-Nazis hate the Muslims."

Melchior sharpened some of the distinctions that make the new anti-Semitism. "As opposed to the claim heard in Europe that there is a general wave of violence by frustrated immigrants, the question must be asked: why do those immigrants strike at synagogues and not, for example, Hindu temples." He notes that Islamic fundamentalism is even more extreme than the Muslim tradition that deigned to let Jews to live as a minority (the dhimmi), subject to a Muslim government, and now demands the destruction of the Jews because they dared to claim land in the area defined by Islam as part of the Muslim trust.

While Israelis and Jews try to define the hostility toward Israel as anti-Semitism, the issue of what exactly is anti-Semitism becomes even more important. At what stage does political and moral criticism of Israel, even vehement criticism, become anti-Semitic? Nearly all those involved in the issue, including rightists like Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert, emphasize that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But Olmert and Melchior agree that anti-Semitism can be hidden behind yet another aphorism: "criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic."


Crucifying Arafat

So where's the boundary? Says Ahlmark: "Political criticism, even bitter criticism of Israel, is certainly not anti-Semitic. I have been opposed to the settlements in the West Bank from the start, and I certainly don't see that criticism as anti-Semitic. And the complaint that Israel uses excessive force in its war on terror is not anti-Semitic, nor is the demand for a withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 borders. The line is crossed when people begin to use anti-Semitic terminology to describe Israel's actions.

For example, when a Swedish newspaper writes that Yasser Arafat was "crucified." Comparisons between Israel's actions and those of the Nazis is doubly sinful: It is both anti-Semitic, because the hidden message is the delegitimization of Israel, the way the Nazi regime was illegitimate, and it also minimizes the dimensions of the Nazi atrocitiesernational conference since the Nuremberg trials to deal with the campaign against anti-Semitism. That conference took place in Oslo. Melchior also says that signs of the new anti-Semitism were first seen in the Lebanon war, "when the Palestinians in Beirut were compared to the Warsaw ghetto."

Ahlmark says that there are several reasons for the upsurge now. "First, the grand expectations from the Oslo agreements, and as great as the expectations, so are the disappointments. Secondly, the long time that has passed since the Holocaust enables sharper European criticism of Israel without as much of the guilt that burdened Europeans in the past decades. The TV coverage has a dramatic impact. The old coverage, in the written press, enabled a rational, more balanced debate. The TV images affect people emotionally, even those with rational approaches." He doesn't rule out the possibility that there may be significance to the feeling that after the Camp David summit broke down, there is a feeling that perhaps the problem is insoluble, which raises the question about Israel's very existence n the region.

Melchior says that the intensity of the coverage definitely intensifies the hatred. "When people are fed a diet of images of Israeli tanks and planes over Palestinian cities, and the scenes of destruction in Jenin, it has a profound influence on their position. In addition, there is a feeling that this conflict, more than others around the world, threatens world peace. And the fact that the Jewish people, thank God, is no longer helpless, the way it was in the past, and that the state of Israel knows how to use force, contributes to the hostility."

For her part, Porat takes note of the demographic changes in Europe, where Muslims have become a large minority, sharpening the debate in Europe about racism. Anti-racist movements in Europe find themselves confronting Israel, which the Arabs have defined as a racist country. Plus the economic issues: Globalization, and the campaign for reparations for Jews from the Holocaust, which has helped Europeans shake off some of their guilt feelings, so they can criticize Israel. "From the start of the reparations campaign, I warned that it could create anti-Semitic trends. That doesn't mean it's not a worthy effort, but it carries a price."