I think it's a false equivalency....the way antisemitism looks and acts has changed after WW2: during the Maccabean revolt there was a clear coloniziner to revolt against and overthrow. Additionally, the Maccabees receieved the reaction they did as a product of the larger global culture of the Ancient Near East which saw these bloody revolutions as a normal part of political/societal evolution. They were operating within the bounds of social convention for their time. Any dramatic return to a long gone socio-political convention would be greated with mixed feelings (like pride at heritage, embarrassment or disagreement with methods, etc), especially if it took a form that has been historically been supressed for survival purposes (like Judaism's move away from ince the Great Revolt of 70CE). Then there are the immediate and long term geo-political implications of the behavior depending on the place of a Maccabean revival, which would vary a lot from region/state/country. The consequences would also shape the response. In the original story, the immediate/soon-after consequences are largely (not completely, though, if I remember correctly) positive. As negative consequences emerged and the socio-political climate began to shift, the response changed (isn't that when the focus starts to be more on the miracle and less on the martyrs and warriors?).