A Holocaust commemoration was canceled during Holocaust Memorial Week.

That fact alone should give us pause.

Not because it reflects a bureaucratic misstep, but because it illustrates something deeper: the persistence of old Jew-hatred patterns in new forms. The lesson of the Holocaust is not only about how hatred culminates, but how it begins, how it adapts, and how institutions respond when confronted with it.

It was in this context that I was invited to speak at Vanier College in Montreal as part of a Holocaust Symposium dedicated to educating students about how societies descend into hatred, dehumanization, and, ultimately, catastrophe.

As I traveled through Montreal city, I was reminded of Montreal’s beautiful cultural richness—its architecture, linguistic character, and intellectual vibrancy. The reception at the college reflected this same openness: staff and students were welcoming and engaged, and the symposium organizers demonstrated a clear commitment to meaningful educational dialogue.

My lecture, Unmasking the Antizionist Era, sought to situate contemporary developments within a broader historical and ideological framework. It became evident to me in preparing this talk that one cannot adequately explain modern antizionism without first examining its intellectual origins, particularly within Marxist thought and Soviet political practice.

Because to understand antizionism today, one must first understand where it comes from.

Antizionism Did Not Begin with Israel

A central point of my lecture, and one that often surprises audiences, is that antizionism did not originate as a reaction to Israeli policies.

It predates the State of Israel.

Antizionism emerged within early 20th-century Marxist thought as a rejection of Jewish nationhood itself. Lenin’s characterization of Zionism as “bourgeois nationalism” and later “bourgeois imperialism” was not incidental; it established a framework in which Jewish self-determination was inherently illegitimate.

Over time, this framework evolved. First, as Soviet state ideology. Then, adapted within Islamist political narratives. And finally, integrated into segments of Western academic and activist discourse. 

While the language evolved, the underlying structure, and the target, remained unchanged.

Repackaging an Old Idea

In contemporary Western contexts, antizionist narratives are often transmitted through widely accepted frameworks such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

These frameworks did not create antizionism. But in practice, they have enabled its spread by placing Jews within simplified “oppressor” categories.

This is not historically unprecedented.

Nazi ideology racialized Jews as inferior

Soviet ideology labeled Jews as “cosmopolitan” or “imperialist”

Today, through DEI, Jews are frequently recast as privileged or colonial oppressors

The terminology evolves. The function, delegitimization, remains.

The historical consequences of such ideological constructions are not abstract.

My own family history reflects this reality. A relative, an intellectual and writer, was executed during Stalin’s “Night of the Murdered Poets” in 1952. Another, a decorated physician and war veteran, was arrested during the Doctors’ Plot in 1953 and released only after Stalin’s death.

These events illustrate the trajectory from ideological labeling to institutional persecution.

Two Forms of the Same Pattern

Today, hostility toward Jews operates through two dominant frameworks. Antisemitism, traditionally associated with the far right, rooted in racial and religious hatred

Antizionism, more prevalent in segments of the progressive left and Islamist movements, rooted in the denial of Jewish nationhood

They differ in language and political alignment. But both rely on the same mechanism: denying Jews legitimacy, whether as individuals, as a people, or as a nation.

Vanier College and the Cost of Intimidation

It is in this context that recent events at Vanier College must be understood.

The cancellation of a Holocaust ceremony during Yom HaShoah is not a neutral administrative decision. It reflects a broader pattern: institutions facing pressure and choosing avoidance over accountability.

One of the defining tactics of contemporary antizionism is intimidation that is targeting institutions, communities, and individuals to shape outcomes and restrict expression.

When institutions respond by canceling events rather than confronting intimidation or ensuring safety, they reinforce that tactic.

This is how hate movements gain ground, not only through ideology, but through the absence of resistance.

From “the Jew” to “the Zionist”

The most important lesson of the Holocaust is not only how Jews were killed, but how they were first redefined and re-coded.

Then, Jews were dehumanized through racial and biological narratives. Today, the term “Zionist” often functions as a proxy, allowing longstanding accusations to reappear in new language: colonialism, apartheid, illegitimacy.

This is not a new phenomenon. It is an adaptation of an old Jew-hatred.

“Never Again” Requires More Than Memory

If the world has learned anything from the Holocaust, it is that hatred does not sustain itself alone. It requires silence, accommodation, and the failure to confront it.

Preventing its recurrence requires resisting intimidation, not yielding to it.

In our time, this means recognizing that antizionism, when it denies Jewish rights and legitimacy, functions as a contemporary vehicle for that same pattern.

This is not a request for approval or sympathy. It is a call for consistency.

As Dr. Naya Lekht explains that one need not like Jews to recognize that hatred directed toward them is wrong, and to stand against it.

Jewish communities have long stood at the forefront of social justice movements. Yet when Jews themselves are targeted, the broader response is often silence.

It is precisely this silence, the passive majority, that has historically enabled persecution.

The Holocaust did not occur only because of those who acted, but because of those who did not.

“Never Again” must therefore mean more than remembrance. It must mean refusing intimidation. It must mean speaking out. It must mean acting before it is too late.

If we are serious about preventing future atrocities, we must do more than remember how the Holocaust happened and must confront the conditions that allow its patterns to re-emerge.

Education matters. Moral clarity matters. And the courage to act, especially when it is uncomfortable, matters most.

????️ We must remember. And we must not remain silent.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)