Should I be blushing because my column last week began with a reference to an incident that never took place – a supposed brutal anti-Semitic attack on a Parisian train against a woman who later confessed that she had made it all up?

Not really. Anti-Semitic violence in France is a real enough trend these days. This just seemed a particularly spectacular case of it.

Prime Minister Sharon should be blushing, though, for causing an unnecessary diplomatic incident by telling a group of American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem two days ago, “If anyone were to ask me to advise our French [Jewish] brethren, I would say one thing to them: Immigrate to Israel as quickly as possible.”

There is nothing wrong with Israelis, or convinced Zionists anywhere, thinking that the best place for a Jew to be, if he or she takes being Jewish seriously, is in Israel. I happen to believe that myself. But this doesn’t make Mr. Sharon’s remarks, which led to a sharp reaction from the French Foreign Ministry and embarrassment in the French Jewish community, any less silly.

They were silly, in the first place, because the last thing French Jews need at this point is to be viewed by their compatriots as the targets of an Israeli immigration campaign. Immigration to Israel is a legitimate option for them, and it is no secret in France that growing numbers of them are considering it, but there is a difference between this and declaring that it is the official policy of the Israeli government to exploit the current wave of French anti-Semitism for that purpose. This is grist for the anti-Semites’ mills and can only encourage the opinion that Israel has an interest in the spread of anti-Semitism as a way of helping it to solve its demographic problems vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

It would be dishonest to deny that Israel needs and wants more Jews and that anti-Semitism has often been a major factor in getting them. The great wave of immigration from Arab countries in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and the million immigrants from the ex-Soviet Union in the 1990s, were responses, among other things, to anti-Semitism actual and feared. So too, of course, was the immigration to Palestine of German and Polish Jews in the 1930s, even if the Holocaust was ultimately the greatest blow to Zionism imaginable, since it wiped out its most important constituency.

But even if one were willing to adopt a cynically instrumental attitude toward it, anti-Semitism has ceased to be, from an Israeli and Zionist point of view, instrumental. The alternative of life in a Jewish state is no longer, as classical Zionism thought it would be, the only option for Jews who feel threatened. Although Jews may still feel the need to flee hostility, there are too many other places in today’s increasingly mobile and globalized world to which they can go. They will choose wherever they think life is best for them, and Israel may not be at the top of their list.

This has been the case repeatedly in recent years, starting with Soviet Jewry itself – which, as the great emigration of the 1990s progressed, increasingly ended up in Germany, America, and other countries. It is what happened with Iranian Jews under the ayatollahs, and – although the motivation here has been less anti-Semitism than economic and political instability – with South African and Argentinian Jews, who have been leaving their native lands in droves but not for Israel.

And this – if anti-Semitism gets bad enough to cause a mass exodus – is what will happen with French Jews too, more of whom have moved in recent years to Montreal alone than to Israel. Apart from the small number of “Falash Mura” or Christianized Jews still left in Ethiopia, Jews everywhere today belong to relatively well-off communities and have the money and skills to gain admission to many places. They will not come to Israel because of anti-Semitism alone.

What will bring them to Israel? The same things that will bring them elsewhere: economic opportunities and quality of life – plus, if they have it, a strong sense of Jewish identity. And even the latter will generally not suffice if the former do not exist. Although there are hundreds of thousands of Jews in America, for example, who feel sufficiently Jewish to think of life in Israel as a possibility, it is not one they will act on as long as it means a lower standard of living.

An Israel anxious to attract Jews, therefore, is no longer a country that stands to benefit from anti-Semitism. It is a country with an interest, above all, in two things: Intensive Jewish education in the Diaspora, and the kind of domestic economic reforms and political solutions that will make it a more livable place. Indeed, if Israel is a good country for Israelis to live in, it will be a good one for Jews from elsewhere.

Anti-Semitism in France is a real problem and may well get worse as the size and power of the French Muslim community grows. But it will not provide Israel with any quick immigration “fix.” Immigration in the free world is a “push-pull” phenomenon, and without the “pull,” no amount of “push” will help. Israel should concentrate on creating that pull and leave the push to be assessed by those who feel it.