In the past, I have warned against the imposition of a monstrous carbuncle in the smallest Royal Park in London - a planned Holocaust memorial that would have fundamentally altered the character of the park. On February 11, Westminster Council, having heard all the arguments, voted unanimously not to adopt the proposal and rightly so, with more Jewish people speaking against the Secretary of State than for.
Those Jewish people who strongly opposed the proposal on the night included Holocaust experts, architects and children of Holocaust survivor parents who found the informal public spaces offered by the Royal Parks a G-d-send when they arrived here in the wake of the Holocaust.
But does the Secretary of State for Communities care about democracy? Obviously not. Twice now, letters have been sent to Robert Jenrick MP, warning of the consequences to the environment, to the children's park, to the already-existing historic monuments (including one commemorating the work of Thomas Fowell Buxton in getting the anti-slavery bill passed through Parliament in 1834), and last but not least, to the plight of the Jewish community itself if this memorial and learning centre go ahead.
On January 30, therefore, backed by the latest research on what makes for effective Holocaust education (and yet more memorials and learning centres are certainly not the answer), former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and I, having been ignored in the past, wrote a joint letter to the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, spelling out the folly of creating, well, this folly in a much-loved tiny park adjacent to the Palace of Westminster.
Our letter to the Secretary of State for Communities, set out in full below, was copied to the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the new MP for Westminster and Baroness Ruth Deech - one of eight committed Jewish peers with family links to the Holocaust who have vociferously objected to this proposal. It reads as follows:
We are writing about the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Education Centre in the Victoria Tower Gardens, to register concerns which we know are widely shared in the Jewish community and beyond. We write as scholars with experience in Jewish-Christian dialogue and most recently as joint authors of a piece on Holocaust education in the current issue of the periodical Standpoint.* We accept entirely that support for the proposal represents good will and a sincere desire to promote better understanding of the most outrageous crime of the twentieth century. It is impossible to dispute the urgency of this. But our concerns fall under four main headings – the process by which decisions have been made about this, the location of the proposed monument, the risk it may incur, and, most importantly, the likely effectiveness of the whole project.
(i) The consultation with Jewish communities outside London was superficial and flawed. Experience of the process in Manchester, in which one of us was directly involved, suggested confusion, misinformation and lack of transparency. It is still somewhat unclear what the rationale is for the decision-making process, and many are worried that the pressure for a decision that will look good for government and others will force the pace of what is in fact a complex question.
(ii) Much has already been written about the proposed location. There is a good deal of unease in the local Westminster resident community at the considerable diminution of a popular public space and children's play area; leaflets supporting the campaign to 'save Victoria Tower Gardens' can be found in local public settings, including at least one parish church. Absolutely no-one disputes the urgency of Holocaust education, but there is genuine anxiety about the location. It has also been pointed out that, while the British Government had no role in the Holocaust, its record in supporting Jewish refugees from the Holocaust is by no means a completely creditable one; there is some concern that a monument adjacent to the Palace of Westminster could give a more self-congratulatory impression than is really truthful.
(iii) There are issues concerning security around in the neighbourhood; comparable monuments in Europe have attracted high-profile vandalism, and the neighbourhood of the Palace of Westminster is already an ultra-sensitive environment. The question is whether a high-profile monument here would – ironically – increase the profile of anti-Semitic activity.
(iv) Hence, finally, the worries about what is most effective. If there is to be very large scale financial investment in Holocaust education – which we would welcome – it should be targeted in the best possible way, taking into consideration methods that have been proved successful elsewhere. Given that the Imperial War Museum is a well-known and highly visible location for exhibitions, we are of the view that systematic funding of wider and better programmes in schools and elsewhere has to be the priority for expenditure.
It is regrettable that any questioning of the VTG project has been characterised as anti-Semitic in some of the media and some responses to the controversy. The fact is that a significant number of prominent Jewish commentators and representatives have shared these worries. As we have written elsewhere, it would be the most tragic of ironies of this project were to be the occasion of more embittered feelings or more overt acts of bigotry.
We hope that you will give serious consideration to these issues, and that whatever results will be a better strategy for combating the scourge of anti-Jewish prejudice which still so afflicts us a culture.
And yet, unbelievably in this day and age, one of our towering thinkers, Dr Williams (whose interest in the Holocaust is second to none), has not even received an acknowledgement of our joint letter.
What does this tell us about our so-called wonderful democracy and the true attitude of those at the heart of government towards the concerns of the Jewish community, as well as to other communities which will be materially affected if this crazy plan goes ahead, not to mention the environment, including the beloved plane trees of Victoria Tower Gardens?
For, instead of behaving like statesmen, these same parliamentarians are either ignoring those who disagree with them, or are simply resorting to public ridicule aimed at highly distinguished Jewish peers with family links to the Shoah, as well as at the majority of Jewish historians (including seasoned Holocaust educators), profound thinkers, public intellectuals, journalists, architects, planning experts and even two former Archbishops of Canterbury with a track record of active empathy with the Jewish community on this question, whose collective and much-valued experience leads them to think that, in this case, the powers-that-be are very wrong.
So let's spell it all out, shall we? We've just marked the Jewish New Year celebrating the environment and a few weeks back the world mourned the passing of the Jew, Kirk Douglas, for whom you may not know that children's playgrounds were of supreme importance. Not to mention that the contemporary Bible readings for Jews in Shul all point to the same truth. Surely it can't be a coincidence that all this is happening now. And if we are not for ourselves, who will be for us, and if not now, when?
It is simply not conducive to Jewish thought and practice to impose vanity projects on others – and the fact that this is being done by means of virtue signalling, using the most disgraceful of bullying tactics in the name of our very own grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts and cousins who perished, or were irreparably afflicted by the Shoah, cannot help but remind us of the behaviour of Amalek towards the Jewish community throughout our history (see my previous article for Christian Today for more on Amalek). For, it is obvious to all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that this project is simply the fantasy of vested interests. Its imposition would destroy everything that Jews hold dear and would lead to a further rise in antisemitism.
Why?
Our main objections outlined in the letter above can be subsumed under four headings: process, location, risk and effectiveness.
First, the consultation process (in which I have been involved and was misinformed all the way) has been and still is deeply flawed.
Second, the location is the worst possible for all sorts of environmental, heritage, community, educational and social reasons. For if this ludicrous and ill-thought-out proposition goes ahead, there will be the fate of our environment to consider, epitomized by the current Jewish festival of Tu Bshvat (New Year for Trees). And, in addition, every child needs open spaces in which to play and interact with other children.
This is also what Kirk Douglas - born Issur Danielovitch, by the way - realised at the end of his life, which is why he donated the bulk of his wealth to children's playgrounds in parks around the USA. Don't people care about the children's playground in Victoria Tower Gardens, which will have to be significantly down-graded if the proposal goes ahead?
And in this particular park, we are also lucky to benefit from a commemoration of the significance, both to this country and to the entire world, of the abolition of the institution of slavery, lovingly cherished here in holistic fashion together with other highly significant monuments dear to the heritage of this country.
Based on sound religious convictions, William Wilberforce and others had enabled the abolition of the slave trade as early as 1807. But Thomas Fowell Buxton worked for the abolition of the very institution of slavery itself, which was eventually carried by Parliament in 1834.
To even consider, therefore, the possibility of overshadowing the Buxton memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens by a 'brutalist' and 'modernist' structure of the kind envisaged simply beggars belief. What an absolute insult to a towering hero and to one of the pinnacles of English history.
Thirdly, if the proposal goes ahead, the risk to the environment, to the memorials, to the public, to the Westminster area and to Londoners and tourists as a whole will be immense, not to mention the increase in antisemitism which will undoubtedly ensue as a result of all this.
So, finally, the main damage that will be done will be to the Jewish community itself. We Jews will inevitably get the blame if this vanity project goes ahead. Research has demonstrated that wherever monuments, memorials and learning centres to the Holocaust emerge, antisemitism follows in their wake, with a knock-on effect on the rest of the community.
Because as we all really know deep down, the only sensible way to commemorate the Holocaust and tackle head-on the scourge of present-day antisemitism (which is rising as I write) is through a thorough reassessment and revamping of our education system at all levels. Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams (Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge) and I have written on the entire subject in Standpoint magazine.
Therefore, for the sake of our precious public spaces, beloved environments, children's play, gratitude for the abolition of slavery and, last but not least, the future of the Jewish community in this country, let us hope that the words which we recite in Shuls at this time of year are fully internalized:
'I am the Lord your G-d who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.'
And if those don't strike a chord, consider the following, all core messages from Judaism:
'Love your neighbour as yourself'
'What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbour'
'What does the Lord require of you but to 'behave justly, love chesed and walk unobtrusively with your G-d.''
Because that's what my own Mum and Dad, who came over here as a result of the Holocaust, would have wanted. They would have been shocked beyond belief at the enormously crass and insulting idea of turning the worst turmoil in our history into a tourist attraction and a money-spinner for vested interests, which is what the Shoah has become in Germany, Poland, Lithuania and elsewhere. Mum and Dad would have fought tooth and nail for the retention of public spaces and for the cherishing of the history of their new country, which they encouraged me as a child to get to know and to love.
Whoever you are speaking for, Robert Jenrick, it is not for my Mum and Dad, for me, for my children and my grandchildren, nor for countless others who share my views but are too cowed and too scared to speak out because of your bullying tactics and infantile silences:
And if you haven't read it already, do take a look at my personal account of how the Holocaust impacted my family: Millions of Jewish families like mine were nearly wiped out by the Holocaust and the pain is as real today as it was then
Dr Irene Lancaster is a Jewish academic, author and translator who has established university courses on Jewish history, Jewish studies and the Hebrew Bible. She trained as a teacher in modern Languages and Religious Education.
