Hanna Rosin has an excellent piece on the prevalence of anti-Semitism within the movement to have universities divest from Israel:

The ultimate aim is to turn Israel into the South Africa of the '80s, the universal campus pariah.
In response, the Hillel crowd has gone "Dershowitz" (that's ballistic in Yiddish), one-upping the Palestinians by getting thousands more students and faculty to sign a counterpetition calling the divestment movement anti-Semitic, part of the toxic stew of Jew-baiting that's been brewing since Sept. 11. Harvard President Lawrence Summers called the protests "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent."
Is Summers right? The divestment movement drifted over from Europe pretty tainted, and not by Muslim radicals. There, some of its lefty proponents are still naked in their bigotry, foaming against the Shylocks of their imagination. Take one M.L. Sinnott, a scientist at the University of Manchester who helped organize academic and scientific boycotts of Israeli scholars. Stephen Greenblatt, as head of the Modern Languages Association, wrote to one of Sinnott's colleagues objecting to their having fired two researchers merely because they were Israeli. And here is what Sinnott wrote back:
"From the 'claptrap' of your open letter," he began, "one would imagine Israel to be an inoffensive Mediterranean Sweden rather than a voelkisch polity whose atrocities surpass those of Milosevic's Yugoslavia." He then progresses to Zionism as the mirror image of Nazism, Jenin as Kristallnacht, the "breathtaking power" of the Jewish lobby, and, of course, the media, "either controlled by Jews or browbeaten by them."
Then, more depressingly, there's José Saramago, the Portuguese novelist and Nobel Prize winner who this year traveled to Ramallah with the Euro-Mumia crowd and found it a "crime comparable to Auschwitz." He then eloquently traced the state's "pathologically exclusivist racism" to "Deuteronomy" to the story of David and Goliath—in short, to the Torah itself.
Israel has its share of human rights violations and even a massacre or two in its history (Jenin not among them, as it turns out). But Kristallnacht? Auschwitz? That such outlandish analogies would pop into both of their heads independently can only mean the template of Scary Omnipotent Jew is already there, buried. Apparently, it takes only a divestment movement, or else four beers and a warm pub, to give it life.
In a 1987 Dissent essay, Paul Berman runs through all the possible explanations for the anti-Zionism of the intellectual left. With every one of the charges against Israel—"white settler colony," "weapons trader," mistreats minorities—you can name many other countries that are infinitely worse. So some part of the inordinately critical focus on Israel must be due, he concludes, to a certain hostility to Jews. Berman boils down the phenomenon to the "Anti-Imperialism of Fools," a takeoff on an August Bebel phrase particularly apt for this year's divestment movement: The radical left, who in this case are spillovers from the World Bank protests, boil their target down to one easy, ugly enemy that is in reality a tiny, relatively insignificant Mediterranean country instead of focusing on world-class imperialists like China and Russia or for that matter world-class human rights abusers.

It is hard to improve on Summers' denunciation of the divestiture movement. It should be noted, though, that the new president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, has followed Summers' example of properly prioritized candor:

As President of Columbia, however, I want to state clearly that I will not lend any support to this proposal. The petition alleges human rights abuses and compares Israel to South Africa at the time of apartheid, an analogy I believe is both grotesque and offensive.

This is a welcome development, especially for those of us who attended Columbia in the 1990s. The times they are a-changing...
Also, check out an example of "going Dershowitz," by Mr. Dershowitz himself.

There's one problem with the conclusion of Rosen's piece, though:

There even ought to be a legitimate way to object to Israel's very existence on purely political grounds. But so far, it seems, no one has managed to do it.

The usually sensible Eugene Volokh agrees:

For instance, the quick retort that "How can you oppose the existence of a Jewish state without being anti-Jewish?" has always struck me as odd -- one can oppose the existence of a Basque or Quebecois state without being anti-Basque or anti-Quebecois.
The sentiment expressed by Rosin and Volokh is untenable because it is anachronistic. Before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, it was entirely possible to argue, free of anti-Semitism, that the Jews' sufferings did not warrant the establishment of a new state on geopolitical grounds. Once the state was established, opposing its existence is identical to desiring its destruction, with the guaranteed suffering accompanying that result (as Volokh notes in the same entry). The costs of not enacting a new state are necessarily more indeterminate than the costs of destroying a pre-existing one. It is possible to oppose the enactment of a new state for Basques or Quebecois without being anti-Basque or anti-Quebecois, but it is an altogether different matter to oppose the existence of such states after they are formed. An easy shorthand for such people would be "anti-Basque," "anti-Quebecois" - or "anti-Semitic."