Practical measures to neutralise anti-Semitism can only contribute positively to inter-communal relations throughout the EU, writes Rory Miller.
The decision by EU Commission president Romano Prodi to convene last Thursday's EU-sponsored conference on anti-Semitism placed the issue at the heart of the European debate for the first time since the establishment of the EEC in the late 1950s.
Though held at a time of rising attacks against Jews, as well as synagogues and Jewish schools and cemeteries, support for the implementation of EU-wide measures to combat anti-Semitism arising from this conference is not universal.
First, there are those who are reluctant to acknowledge the rising threat of European anti-Semitism. They equate the economic and social integration of Europe's Jews over the last few decades with an irreversible decline in what has been often termed the "European disease".
This group, perhaps understandably, defines anti-Semitism in terms of the anti-Jewish policies sponsored by church and state during the mediaeval and early modern periods.
They also argue that the threat should not be exaggerated because there is little evidence to suggest that Europe is experiencing the same visceral anti-Jewish sentiment that more recently culminated in Auschwitz.
There are also those (including many Jews) who fear that drawing attention to rising anti-Jewish prejudice will perpetuate the view of Jewish history as a long trail of persecution and not much else. They believe that the best way for Jews to counter hostility is for them to maintain a low profile.
Among this group are many of the 34 per cent of Europe's population who, according to a January 2004 poll, believe that the Holocaust, though a tragedy, has become an excuse for Jewish victimhood.
A third group includes those who believe that the current challenge facing Europe's Jews is real enough, but that it is purely a function of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. And, as such, they argue that anti-Semitism will decline once Israel and the Palestinians make peace.
This line of thought is given credence by the fact that Mr Prodi decided to organise last week's anti-Semitism conference following the publication of poll data that showed that 59 per cent of Europeans viewed Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.
Moreover, it is a fact that the increase in hostility towards Jews followed the breakdown in the Oslo peace process in late 2000; while those months that witnessed the worst fighting between Israel and the Palestinians (such as April 2002, when Israel was falsely accused of war crimes in Jenin) also saw the highest number of attacks on Jewish targets in Europe.
The final constituency that may be reluctant to endorse the EU's programme to tackle anti-Semitism comprises minority and ethnic groups within the EU who take exception to the focus of attention on anti-Semitism at the expense of their own problems.
In particular there are many among Europe's large Muslim community who feel increasingly isolated and marginalised within Europe and who believe that the EU should be dealing with their concerns as a priority.
The above arguments are correct to the extent that the "old anti-Semitism" - of blood libels and conspiracy theories that blame Jews for the world's ills - is largely absent from Europe despite its prevalence in the Arab world.
Nevertheless, this neglects the fact that a growing number of Europe's younger Jews feel persecuted on account of their religion. Indeed, Jewish emigration from France has recently reached a three-decade high in response to a hostile environment. While a recent report from Sweden notes how members of its Jewish community are disguising their true identity out of fear of attack.
Moreover, the argument that the new anti-Semitism is a temporary phenomenon triggered by the Mid-East conflict is inconsistent with the fact that anti-Semitism predates the establishment of Israel by more than a millennium.
It also overlooks the fact that much of the current resentment towards Jews within Europe has been fuelled by the tendency of Europe's political and intellectual elite to demonise Israel.
This has created an environment in which animosity towards Europe's Jews is increasingly acceptable, on the grounds that if the Jewish state is, as many wrongly claim, equivalent to Nazi Germany, then Jews should not support it.
The judicial, political and educational proposals put forward at the Brussels meeting are a real attempt to combat European anti-Semitism. If implemented, these measures (as well as a potential Irish-sponsored draft UN resolution condemning anti-Semitism) would complement policies previously introduced by individual member-states to tackle the problem.
Both France and Italy have already set up commissions to study the matter; while France, which has seen by far the greatest rise in anti-Semitic violence, has also acted to reduce such incidents by increasing the police presence in urban areas with large Jewish populations in April 2002 and January 2003.
Finally, the EU should not be deterred by the fear that its vigorous opposition to anti-Semitism will damage any attempt to improve relations with European Muslims. Practical measures to neutralise anti-Semitism can only contribute positively to inter-communal relations throughout the EU at a highly sensitive time.
Dr Rory Miller is lecturer in Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London.