And actually bobad's "new antisemitism" link, which is to a wiki entry, makes quite an interesting read. It's tempting to do that evangelist/Keith thing and pick out the bits that suit, but that isn't me. It's a long read which, more or less neutrally, assesses both sides of the argument. In one place the point is made that the ardent supporters of the broader definition of antisemitism are (with an irony that goes above their heads - my observation) actually antisemitic themselves, as Jim states. As for me, I'll stick with my tenet that antisemitism can only be that if it is an attack on Jews because they are Jews. It's perfectly possible to look at any attack on Israel/the Jewish state/the Israeli regime, as well as attacks on Jews as an ethnic or religious group, including concepts such as the apartheid state and comparisons with Nazism, through that lens. You've gotta be honest about it, that's all. You can say something that's bloody stupid and antisemitic, you can say something that's just bloody stupid, or you can make fair criticism. Most of the remarks I've seen attributed to members of the Labour Party that were allegedly antisemitic fell into the middle category in my view.