Dr. Naya Lekht is a leading scholar, educator, writer, and lecturer on contemporary antisemitism, Zionism, and the Holocaust. She is the creator and host of the podcast “Don’t Know Much About,” which discusses contentious historical, geopolitical, and political topics. She is living proof that history is not a museum– it is a conversation we are still having with the past. What follows is our conversation, edited for clarity.
An additional note to readers: in the interview below, the Solomon Journal has adopted the spelling “antizionism,” instead of the more commonly used “anti-Zionism.” This is intentional, and in line with the historical framework that Dr. Lekht has developed through her scholarship.
According to Dr. Lekht, Jew hatred has evolved throughout history and can be divided into three eras: “antijudaism,” which accused Jews of killing Jesus (deicide); antisemitism, which racialized hatred of Jews; and today’s iteration, antizionism, which attacks the Jewish people as oppressors and colonizers, rejecting their collective identity and right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Spelling “antizionism” as one word is meant to reflect this historical continuity of Jew hatred, a different strain of the same “antisemitism” virus. Both antisemitism and antizionism are distinct and identifiable forms of Jew hatred.
Because this interview directly examines how language shapes public understanding, this intentional spelling of antizionism is an extension of the discussion. Keeping antizionism consistent with antisemitism underscores Dr. Lekht’s argument that this phenomenon should be recognized, named, and understood with the same seriousness.
Claire Ambinder Kanner: Could you take us through the evolution of antizionism, particularly its roots in the Soviet Union, and how it emerged as a veil for deeper animosities and as the newest version of Jew-hatred that has spread like wildfire in recent years?
Naya Lekht: Antizionism was not simply a spontaneous political position. It was deliberately engineered by the Soviet Union as a way to disguise hostility toward Jews and Israel as ordinary political debate.
Its roots actually stretch back to the early 1900s. In 1903, Vladimir Lenin was already writing angry essays denouncing “Zionists” as enemies of socialism. Then in 1918, the Soviet government created Jewish Sections, known as the Yevsektsiya, whose purpose was to dismantle Jewish culture, close synagogues, and suppress Hebrew education. By the 1960s, this campaign became more sophisticated. A 1963 book called Judaism Without Embellishment, by Trofim Kichko, recycled classic antisemitic stereotypes, which embarrassed the Soviet government internationally for being too obvious with its hatred. So, they pivoted: instead of overt Jew-hatred, they began promoting “antizionism,” presenting it as a legitimate political critique while keeping the same animosity against Jewish people beneath.
CAB: How did the Soviets make antizionism appear acceptable, even moral, while insisting that antisemitism was wrong?
NL: They achieved this through a clever rhetorical trick. Soviet leaders always paired their attacks on Zionism with public condemnations of antisemitism. This created the illusion that one could fiercely oppose Zionism without being anti-Jewish. For example, in 1971, the Soviet newspaper Pravda published an article called “Zionism: The Weapon of Reaction.” The author, Viktorovich Bolshakov, claimed that antisemitism was a “bourgeois racial ideology” unfit for socialism, but that Zionism was a political tool of capitalist powers.
Similarly, a 1974 article in Kommunist described antisemitism as hateful and outdated, while portraying Zionism as a reactionary movement serving Western imperialism. This false separation allowed the Soviets to persecute Jews while claiming the moral high ground. It’s one of the most effective propaganda strategies of the 20th century, what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan later called “the world’s most powerful propaganda apparatus.”
CAB: You describe antizionism as “the most sophisticated form of anti-Jewish bigotry.” Why do you consider it more dangerous or clever than older forms of antisemitism?
NL: Traditional antisemitism was usually easy to recognize. It involved explicit racial or religious hatred. Antizionism, on the other hand, was designed to appear reasonable. It used political language instead of racial language, replacing “the Jews” with “the Zionists.” By framing Israel as a “colonial apartheid project,” the Soviets cleverly linked their campaign to existing Western guilt about slavery, racism, and imperialism. This allowed many Western intellectuals, especially those on the political left, to transfer their self-criticism about colonialism onto Israel. As I have written, Israel became an effigy for Western guilt: by condemning Israel, people could feel morally pure without confronting their own societies’ flaws.
CAB: You mentioned that this focus on Israel blinds people to real suffering elsewhere. Could you explain what you mean by that?
NL: Yes. Because antizionism trains people to see Israel as the ultimate symbol of injustice, it distorts moral vision. In my classroom, when I mention the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority in China facing forced labor and imprisonment, many students respond, “The what? How do you spell that?” It’s not their fault; it just shows how public attention has been misdirected. There are over eight million Africans enslaved today and countless victims of persecution in places like Nigeria and China. Yet many Western activists devote all their energy to condemning Israel. Antizionism demands total fixation on one target, resulting in blindness to other global atrocities.
CAB: Could you tell us more about the connection between Soviet antizionism and earlier forms of antisemitism from the 19th century?
NL: Certainly. The Soviet manipulation of language reminds me of an earlier moment in history when Jew-hatred was “modernized.” In 1879, a German writer named Wilhelm Marr coined the term “antisemitism” to give Jew-hatred a scientific and respectable sound. In his pamphlet The Victory of Judaism Over Germandom, he described a supposed racial struggle between “Semitic” and “Teutonic” peoples. Marr’s version was still openly anti-Jewish: he didn’t try to hide it. The Soviets took this wordplay much further. They created antizionism precisely to conceal the hate. It was not just rebranding prejudice; it was weaponizing language to confuse reality.
CAB: So why did Soviet antizionism manage to recruit some Jewish voices, when Marr’s antisemitism did not?
NL: Because the Soviets presented antizionism as something moral and progressive. They claimed it was not about race or religion, but about politics and social justice. That framing made it appealing, or at least confusing, to some Jewish intellectuals who already supported Marxism and internationalism.
The Soviets also deliberately sought Jewish participation to give their campaign credibility. In 1983, they established the Antizionist Committee of the Soviet Public, composed mostly of Jewish members. This allowed them to say, in essence, “See? Even Jews agree, antizionism isn’t antisemitic.” It was a brilliant piece of deception. Of course, most Soviet Jews rejected it and became “refuseniks,” fighting to emigrate. But a few willing participants helped the propaganda seem legitimate.
CAB: How did this ideology spread beyond the Soviet Union to influence the West?
NL: The Soviets exported antizionism across the globe through newspapers, international conferences, and the United Nations. In 1975, their influence helped pass the infamous UN resolution declaring that “Zionism is racism.” This message resonated strongly in the West, where guilt over colonialism and racism was widespread. As a result, antizionism became not just an attack on Israel, but also a vehicle for self-criticism of the West. It turned Western self-hate outward, toward Israel and Jews. And that’s why, decades after the Soviet collapse in 1991, its influence still shapes campus discourse, activism, and media coverage today.
CAB: You have mentioned that debating whether antizionism is antisemitism plays directly into the propaganda trap. Could you explain that?
NL: Absolutely. The endless question over whether antizionism is antisemitism was built into the Soviet strategy itself. It keeps people busy arguing definitions instead of recognizing the hate beneath them. For instance, there have been numerous high-profile debates, such as the 2024 Munk Debate in Toronto with Natasha Hausdorff and Douglas Murray [against opponents Gideon Levy and Mehdi Hasan], that start by defining “Zionism.” That mirrors how Wilhelm Marr once tried to define “Semitism” to make his hatred sound rational. Both tactics distract from the simple truth: they are debates about whether hating Jews in a certain form is acceptable. The solution is to stop debating the definition and call antizionism what it is: a sophisticated hate movement rooted in propaganda.
CAB: You have also written that antizionism, like all forms of Jew-hatred, is built on a “cycle of libels.” What exactly do you mean by that?
NL: A libel is a harmful lie told about a group of people to justify maltreatment. In the past, there were blood libels, which falsely claimed Jews used Christian blood in rituals, or accusations that Jews controlled the world’s money. Antizionism works the same way; it spreads new libels. Once those lies are introduced, they follow a predictable pattern. First, the targeted group, Jews in this case, is stigmatized, made to look evil or dangerous. Then society starts to exclude them: kicking them out of spaces, conversations, or communities. Finally, that exclusion can turn into violence. It’s a cycle that always ends the same way, no matter what the specific lie is.
CAB: Why do you think people keep falling for these kinds of libels, even today?
NL: Because the lies change shape, but the emotional effect stays the same. Each generation thinks it’s talking about something new, whether it’s “race” or “Zionism,” but the pattern of blaming Jews for the world’s problems never goes away. Propaganda also makes these lies feel morally justified. People believe they’re standing up for justice when, in fact, they’re spreading hate disguised as politics or activism.
CAB: If the libels keep changing form, how can we stop this cycle?
NL: The key is to identify the pattern rather than argue about each claim. When we try to “debunk” every lie, like proving Zionism isn’t racist, we’re already playing the game that propaganda created. The lies aren’t meant to be logical; they’re meant to isolate Jews. Instead, we need to recognize the cycle itself. The moment we see a community being accused of evil in broad, emotional terms, we should ask: “Is this another libel starting to spread?” Once people can see that mechanism at work, it loses much of its power. Awareness breaks the cycle; argument feeds it.
CAB: Thank you so much, Dr. Lekht. This has been incredibly informative and eye-opening.