In response, many "progressive" voices across the spectrum of the organized Jewish community have questioned Rosenfeld's assumptions, particularly as they relate to what separates legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitic rhetoric. JSPAN Board member Theodore Mann, nationally-recognized Jewish communal leader for five decades, wrote the following open letter to David Harris, AJ Committee Executive Director:

David: I read somewhere a month or two ago your comment about the title to Jimmy Carter's book. I think you called it a case of false advertising. That's exactly how I felt about the title to Alvin Rosenfeld's essay, "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism". Yet you wrote the foreword to the essay, and praised it.

Throughout the essay he seeks to make the label "progressive" a derogatory term, just as three decades ago, neo-conservatives made the "l" word, "liberal", a derogatory term. Yet today, isn't it obvious that if there is any sub-set of Jews that has caused an increase in anti-Semitism in America, it is the neo-cons who served the Bush Administration and who, rightly or wrongly, are regarded by countless Americans as largely responsible for dragging America into an unwinnable war in Iraq.

David, it's one thing to write an essay about Jewish anti-Semites and strongly condemning them. There have always been some of those and they deserve all the condemnation they get. It's quite another thing to suggest that they are "progressives", a label that most American Jews use to describe one's "liberal" views on social justice, poverty, civil rights and liberties, separation of powers, and separation of religion and government issues. As you know so well, those same "progressive" Jews comprise the great bulk of American Jewish supporters of Israel. It is to them that the American Jewish Committee, and you yourself, and Mr. Rosenfeld owe an apology.

Slate Online asked columnist Joe Lanzmann to help their readers decide for themselves whether they qualify as liberal anti-Semites.

After years of rising concern about left-wing anti-Semitism, the New York Times reported this week about a study for the American Jewish Committee. Written by professor Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University, the study describes the spread of a virulent anti-Zionism in many quarters on the left that has helped legitimate anti-Semitism. Some people have seized on the study to argue that these extreme anti-Zionists are really anti-Jewish bigots. Critics reply that criticizing Israel, even harshly, doesn't prove animus toward the Hebrew people.

So, how can you tell if you're a good liberal who simply thinks the West Bank settlements are bad policy - or a closet Judeophobe whose progressive views mask a serious attitude problem? Take this quiz and see.

I started writing a column for The Post in 1976. It was about local affairs, and so it took me about a year to write my first column about anti-Semitism. Since then, I have written about 90 more, most of them full-throated condemnations of the hatred that killed fully one-third of all Jews during my own lifetime. So it comes as a surprise that has the force of a mugging to be accused of aiding the very people I so hate -- of being an abettor of something called "The New Anti-Semitism."

The accusation comes from the pen of Indiana University's Alvin H. Rosenfeld, whose report " 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" was published by the prestigious American Jewish Committee and given great play in the New York Times. Certain prominent American Jews -- the historian Tony Judt, the playwright Tony Kushner, the poet Adrienne Rich and I, among others -- were charged with aiding anti-Semitism with our writings. We were, in other words, enablers. As if that was not bad enough, Shulamit Reinharz, a Brandeis University professor and a columnist for a Jewish weekly, dispensed totally with Rosenfeld's qualification. She told the Boston Globe that all of us mentioned in the AJC report are just plain anti-Semites.

Among the first to call me after the Times piece appeared was the AJC itself. It apologized. It did not mean to include me with the others, and it would, its representative told me, soon set matters straight. It issued a news release saying that Rosenfeld's characterization of me does "not reflect the totality of [my] occasional writings on the Middle East." My "occasional writings" include at least 30 datelined columns from the region and a near-obsessive attention to the subject. The diligent can find the AJC statement on the Internet and the reference to me in paragraph 10, a parenthetical phrase of near-microscopic prominence. Oddly, it has not had the same impact as the Times story.

For more reactions to Rosenfeld essay:

• Click here to view Leonard Fein's "Screed" at Americans For Peace Now.
• Click here to view the Jewish Forward's editorial "Infamy".

The Presidential campaign is heating up which is impressive considering that we are a year away from the first caucus and primary. Not long ago, Presidential campaigns didn't start until the year of the election and sometimes well into the year. LBJ's campaign in 1960 did not start until days before the convention, but of course he didn't get nominated!

But here we are in February 2007 and, in both parties, the campaigns are in full-swing.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has barely been mentioned by any of the candidates. If past history is any guide, it won't be mentioned much and, when it is, only in front of Jewish audiences where ritualistic albeit effusive utterances of support for Israel will be offered.

That approach is not limited to this one issue. Candidates invariably tell audiences what they think an audience wants to hear. That will certainly be the case at next month's AIPAC conference where each candidate will try to hit as many applause lines as possible without actually saying anything that might constrain policy if he or she actually becomes President.