Who is still a Jew-hater?

I spent a few days in London last weekend, but decided to skip the theatrical event of the year, at least as far as the city's Jews are concerned. "Seven Jewish Children: A Play for Gaza" has the community's worthies and the cream of its commentators up in arms: The 10-minute play by Caryl Churchill, they say, is unequivocally anti-Semitic.

I know, my journalistic duty should have propelled me to the Royal Court Theatre to see for myself. But somehow it seemed such a waste of time (though not of money, as the crusading playwright has insisted that entrance be free, as long as there is a collection for a charity providing medical aid to the Palestinians at the theater door). Maybe I'm just not a fan of modern political theater, but all the descriptions I read of the play, including a number of favorable reviews, convinced me that I would find it turgid and uninspiring, definitely not worth the subway journey.

But what about the alleged anti-Semitism? Is this a 21st-century version of the German passion plays in which the Jews were portrayed as Christ-killers? That, I was anxious to find out. Luckily, however, the entire text is freely available on the Internet, so it only took three minutes to read it through.

And my verdict? Despite having no pretensions to be a theater critic, I felt that it was a pretentious piece of propaganda masquerading as art. And though it purports to offer a historical arc, from World War II to the present, it teaches us nothing we did not know before. But anti-Semitic? That depends on your definition of anti-Semitism.

First, a brief description, for those of you who are reading about Seven Jewish Children for the first time: There are no children in this play. Instead, there are adults, probably the absent children's parents, debating how to explain the meaning of their current situation to them. It begins with the Holocaust and proceeds through the emigration to Palestine, the 1948 and 1967 wars, the intifada and the recent fighting in Gaza.

Needless to say, it is a highly selective, intensely anti-Israel screed. But is it anti-Semitic? While a certain paranoia on the part of members of a nation who have suffered history's oldest and deadliest hatred is quite understandable, I personally prefer a more restricted definition of anti-Semitism. Or as Christopher Hitchens once wrote, "I care enough about this issue to keep my hatred pure, and to reserve it for those who truly merit it."

Still, if it were only the usual knee-jerk suspects crying shame, it would be easier to shrug the matter off. But when serious mainstream writers like Howard Jacobson and Jeffrey Goldberg join the condemning choir, I sit up and listen.

When an Arab mob shouts "kill the Jews" or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion go on sale, there is no question. But in a society in which, thankfully, anti-Semitism has become unfashionable, who is still a Jew-hater?

Various attempts have been made in recent years to define the new anti-Semitism. Is it, as some believe, blatantly unfair criticism of Israel and holding the Jewish state to impossible standards of conduct that are not demanded of any other nation? Israel does excite irrational passions, on both sides of the political divide. But it is all too easy to dismiss its detractors as anti-Semites, when most of them are simply anti-Americans, post-anti-imperialists or simply nostalgic Arabists.

However, there is another definition - the equation between Israelis and Nazis. And what really grates in Churchill's text is the almost casual connection between the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust and the destruction inflicted on the people of Gaza. In a letter last week to The Independent, she insisted that she did not make any comparison between the two. But for many, just the historical sequence of her play, coupled with its blatant political partisanship, clearly crosses the red line.

I don't know whether she is an anti-Semite. After rereading the play, I still don't think there is any hard evidence of this. On the other hand, she certainly shows no regard for Jewish sensitivities, apparently intentionally.

But in her obnoxious way, she is posing a serious challenge to those who do care deeply about the lessons of the Holocaust. It isn't the cranks and bishops who deny the Holocaust who really worry us, it is those who try to redefine it.

The Holocaust is a uniquely Jewish tragedy and belongs exclusively to us, or so many Jews believe. Therefore, any non-Jew who hijacks it for his own political purpose has committed a crime against the Jewish people. But we also want it to serve as the universal symbol of evil and object to any other genocide being termed a holocaust. We used to be able to have it both ways, but more and more high-profile critics of Israel are contesting our exclusive ownership.

It is too easy to brand all these takeover attempts as anti-Semitism. If we don't want the memory of the Holocaust to turn into a double-edged sword, to be brandished every time Jews are accused of oppressing others, it is the duty of Jewish thinkers, educators and writers to come up with an updated attitude toward our grandparents' tragedy. There is no real danger of the Holocaust being denied or forgotten in the next generation. But if we don't start taking this challenge seriously, we will find that the anti-Israel narrative has become the accepted version.