They yearn for the good old days of genteel anti-Semitism

"I can't wait for this war to end," a European aristocrat is said to have remarked during the Second World War, "so a gentleman can be an anti-Semite again."

The war ended. Adolf, the house-painter from Braunau am Inn, died. And some gentlemen became anti-Semites once more.

Modern anti-Semitism sits well with this anecdote. Just as the aristocrat recoiled at Hitler, so the anti-Semitism of the British media, Westminster, Oxbridge and the salon circuit would not dream of advocating the murderous policies of the Third Reich. History repeats itself as it spreads the virus once more among the credulous, but history is mysterious. It never repeats in precisely the same way.

In the Middle East, where countries such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia regurgitate the Protocols of Zion and the Damascus Blood libel, one understands the agenda. Behind their anti-Semitism is the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel. More baffling is a BBC programme earnestly explaining that Egypt's newspaper cartoons showing a series of evil-looking and exaggeratedly hook-nosed Jews manipulating America "may seem bizarre, racist and anachronistic to outsiders" but are really only "symbolic" of a desire to support the Palestinians and are based on "no historical hatred of Jews as a race".

What can one make of such a programme? The choice of interviewees are a New York Jew converted to Islam and teaching at the Cairo University, and some nameless "young Egyptians" in coffee shops. They "hate Israelis" but regard "the Jews as our cousins". The programme seems to have no grasp of what it is to be an unbeliever and a Jew in an Islamic theocracy: better under the Mameluke sultans than under the Crusaders or Nasser, but second-class citizens nevertheless, always in fear of anti-Semitic violence. Is such an interviewing technique selective to the point of being anti-Semitic or is it just historically illiterate?

Up-to-date anti-Semitism awards the British cartoon-of-the-year prize to an illustration from the Independent that could happily have graced the pages of Der Sturmer: a vicious caricature of the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, naked, eating a Palestinian infant. One cannot imagine a British newspaper running a similar caricature of Yasser Arafat or, indeed, his supporter, European Commission president Romano Prodi, even though their money funds some of today's most murderous terrorists.

Does any of this matter? Perhaps not. The solution is not to fire BBC journalists or send out the race relations gang to censor the Independent. This low-level anti-Semitism breaks no bones; while it may embolden the thugs who do, in today's Britain it probably only feeds an atmosphere which, at worst, will lead to civil exclusion for British Jews. Visible Jews will be less likely to get university places or be top candidates for jobs. Salon anti-Semitism stops there; it does not envision Auschwitz.

Many people, journalists in particular, protest that they are not anti-Semitic only anti-Sharon or anti-Zionist. Possibly. Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between anti-Semitism and genuine political differences. Some anti-Zionists are just anti-Zionists. If, however, you apply different standards to the state of Israel than to any other country, or if you distort its actions and close your eyes to its enemies' faults in order to demonise Israel, then your motives stop being credible. Israel is the existing homeland of the Jewish people and cannot be viewed in total isolation from them. It is possible to believe that its creation was a mistake without being anti-Semitic, but advocating policies knowing they would lead to its destruction veers into anti-Semitic territory.

Then there are the boycotts. If organising boycotts against all Israeli professors and products is not anti-Semitic, it is so close that it must be either terminal stupidity or an incomprehension and lack of any ethical standards. I don't know which is worse. Would the professors at London University or Oxford who organise and support such boycotts prefer to be known as people of total moral confusion - close to moral insanity - or anti-Semites? Take your pick.

The EU commissioned a study on anti-Semitism in Europe and on getting its results have suppressed it. Not that surprising. Lots of organisations commission studies that produce results they don't want to hear and then ban them. Tobacco companies have allegedly done it with studies on tar.

Governments have certainly done it with studies showing that second-hand smoke is not particularly dangerous. A casual observer could have told the EU that any study of contemporary European anti-Semitism would probably show, as this study apparently does, that it is related to (1) an influx of Muslim immigrants (2) the propaganda of the Left and (3) the emboldenment by the first two of the far Right, who think it is now respectable to join the chorus. But such conclusions don't fit the EU's pro-Palestinian bias.

Furthermore, while it's safe to keep Muslim Turkey out of the EU, because as Giscard d'Estaing said snobbishly, they are not really Europeans, stirring up immigrant Muslims already inside the EU could be inconvenient. The Jews have attracted dislike for millennia, probably because during much of that time they maintained a separate existence without a country of their own. Most people trying to survive without a national address have disappeared through slaughter or assimilation - which is why the Jews concluded a homeland would be a good thing. But there is a price for this non-disappearance, especially when its members are high achievers.

Last week, after a Jewish school was burnt, France's Chief Rabbi advised his parishioners to wear a baseball cap or hat when outside instead of the identifying yarmulke. Well, yes. If only Jews would stop being so Jewish, the problem of anti-Semitism might go away. If they didn't have synagogues or prayer curls, or if they denounced Israel, they would not be so grating. They could, naturally, describe themselves as Jews, perhaps mention their Jewish ancestry as a matter of pride - or as a tool in political discussion.

Today in Geneva, a group of Israeli Jews and Palestinians are signing a peace agreement, "the Geneva accord" which, if implemented, would probably, if unintentionally, lead to one goal of anti-Semites - the ending of the Jewish state. All the signatories are private individuals representing no one. Leading the Israelis is Yossi Beilin, a politician repudiated by voters. Neither side could deliver acceptance of its terms by its fellow citizens. No responsible Israeli government could sign this document, which takes no account of security and present realities. It is said that Yasser Arafat is happy with it: one rather suspects he is smiling at the Accords and not on them. Why, then, would any loyal Israeli be involved in this peace plan? Why would such eminent people as Kofi Annan and Colin Powell encourage it?

Possibly, because in the 21st century, after several millennia of the problem, many people are exasperated with the "Jewish question". Even more to the point, some Jews themselves are exhausted with being Jews.