Last Friday was the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Allied forces, which in recent decades has come to be marked as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Nicole Lampert reflects on how quickly this day, especially in the United Kingdom, has been divested of all meaning:

The Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, for example, compared the vaccine rollout to the Holocaust, while “trans rights” activists frequently and consistently abuse the memory of the genocide—the most recent example being a Scottish councilor a few days ago.

In addition to Bridgen’s comments, the Welsh government minister Julie Morgan intended to hold a Holocaust Memorial Day (which falls on the January 27 each year) vigil for “Gypsy, Roma, and Traveler” victims. Nowhere did Morgan’s plan mention Jews. Why? It should be an “inclusive” event, apparently. Elsewhere, the University and College Union and an official from the National Union of Students have both previously marked HMD by referring to every group targeted by the Nazis except one: Jews.

The new fashion for anti-colonialism adds another layer to these issues because there are some who like to call Jews the new Nazis—a particularly nasty form of anti-Semitism called Holocaust inversion, whose practitioners legitimize it by pointing to the injustices committed by the modern state of Israel. According to this reading, Jews should have learned a lesson from the Holocaust which was, apparently, to be nicer people.

Two weeks ago, a terrorist—most likely working for Hizballah—managed to cross into Israel from Lebanon and plant an explosive device near Megiddo that wounded a civilian. The attack, according to Matthew Levitt, is a sign of the Iran-backed militia’s increasing willingness to challenge the tacit understanding it has had with the IDF for over a decade. Such renewed aggression can also be found in the rhetoric of the group’s leaders:

In the lead-up to the 2006 war, [Hizballah’s] Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah famously miscalculated how Israel would respond to the cross-border abduction of its soldiers. According to Israeli analysts, however, he now believes he can predict the enemy’s behavior more accurately, leading him to sharpen his rhetoric and approve a series of increasingly aggressive actions over the past three years.

Nasrallah’s willingness to risk conflict with Israel was partly driven by domestic economic and political pressures. . . . Yet he also seemed to believe that Israel was unlikely to respond in a serious way to his threats given Hizballah’s enlarged precision-missile arsenal and air-defense systems.

In addition to the bombing, this month has seen increased reports of cross-border harassment against Israelis, such as aiming laser beams at drivers and homes, setting off loud explosions on the Lebanese frontier, and pouring sewage toward Israeli towns. Hizballah has also disrupted Israeli efforts to reinforce the security barrier in several spots along the Blue Line, [which serves as the de-facto border between Lebanon and the Jewish state].

This creeping aggressiveness—coupled with Nasrallah’s sense of having deterred Israel and weakened its military posture—indicate that Hizballah will continue trying to move the goalposts.