There will be a remarkable gathering in the House of Commons on Wednesday. In the run-up to Holocaust Memorial Day, several inmates of the death camps are appearing before a parliamentary select committee.
They include survivors of Auschwitz, Theresienstadt, in what was then Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, and Westerbork, a transit centre in Holland. Among them will be Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, 98, a German-born cellist who was in the Women’s Orchestra of Auschwitz, whose liberation on January 27, 1945 is marked this weekend.
Their presence before MPs is itself extraordinary. They are there to object to plans to build a memorial to the Holocaust, or Shoah, in a small park next to the Palace of Westminster. This is intended to commemorate the millions of Jews murdered in the camps in which Mrs Lasker-Wallfisch and her co-petitioners were held, and yet they are opposed to its construction.
Given what is going on at the moment, with the war in Gaza fomenting a rise in anti-Semitism to levels not seen for many decades in this country, it takes a heightened level of hubris for our political leaders to have managed to divide Jewish people over how to remember humanity’s greatest crime. How is it possible to have created the circumstances in which survivors of the camps themselves say: “Not in our name”?
This story begins exactly 10 years ago in January 2014 when David Cameron, then prime minister, set up a commission to consider whether Britain could do more to preserve the memory of the Holocaust and ensure that the lessons it teaches are never forgotten. This was an important exercise, and it was not calculated to conclude that nothing new was needed.
Indeed, in its report, the commission, which received nearly 2,500 responses, said that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the existing national memorial in Hyde Park; education about the Holocaust was not reaching significant numbers of young people; and the testimony of survivors and liberators needed to be urgently recorded and appropriately preserved.
It recommended a “striking and prominent new national memorial” with a “world-class learning centre at the heart of a campus, driving a network of national educational activity”.
Some questioned whether a new memorial was necessary at all. There are Holocaust memorials in Europe and Jerusalem, and the Imperial War Museum in London has a centre for education. Moreover, Britain was not responsible for the Holocaust, so it was at least debatable whether a new national memorial was required as a reminder of its horrors.
But few made this point for fear of being denounced as uncaring. The question that then arose was where to put it. More than 50 locations were considered before the commission selected Victoria Tower Gardens beside the Thames, and next to the House of Lords.
There then began an increasingly bitter controversy that continues to this day. Local people were appalled when they saw the design by David Adjaye consisting of 23 bronze fins, with the gaps representing the 22 countries where the Holocaust destroyed Jewish communities. They will act as separate paths leading into the Learning Centre, along with a “contemplation court” and “hall of testimonies”.
While many Jewish community leaders, like the chief rabbi, have backed both the design and the location, other prominent Jewish people have not. The actress Maureen Lipman said: “Another lump of twisted bronze representing the Shoah is the last thing we need as a community.”
Baroness Deech, who has gathered the survivors together for Wednesday’s evidence session, calls it “an ill-considered and damaging proposal that will do a disservice to victims and survivors, and little to enhance understanding and respect.”
Moreover, its presence next to the Palace of Westminster is considered a security risk and, in view of the weekly marches through London in protest at Israel’s actions in Gaza, it is easy to see how it could become a focus for anti-Semitic incidents. Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says: “I am astonished that this has not been seen to be a real problem.”
Lady Deech says there is a case for an education centre, in view of the evident ignorance among many young people on the pro-Palestinian marches. There is even a case to be made for a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, but one in keeping with the intimate nature of the surroundings and not the ghastly edifice proposed. Perversely, it will overshadow the neo-Gothic Buxton Memorial Fountain, erected in 1866 to mark the emancipation of slaves in the British Empire and the role of parliamentarians in ending the trade.
Supporters say the location next to the seat of the legislature demonstrates that “political decisions have far-reaching consequences”, a fatuous observation given the enormity of the event it represents. The rationale for its construction has also been subtly changed to one that extols British values.
Westminster Council rejected this project, which will cost up to £140 million, but was overruled by the planning inspector, whose decision in turn was quashed by the High Court because development restrictions on the gardens dating to 1900 were still in place. But rather than stop at that point, the Government brought forward legislation to force it through. In digging themselves into entrenched positions to defend an unfitting sculpture on an unsuitable site, ministers have caused divisions in the very community the memorial is supposed to represent. To what purpose? When those who were in the camps say “think again”, is it not time to do so?
It must still be possible to agree a different way forward based on consensus and goodwill. Perfectly reasonable alternatives have been put forward but no one seems to be listening. Robert Jenrick, the former minister and enthusiastic champion for the proposed scheme, has said it would “send a clear signal of Britain’s zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism.”
An easier way to show that would be to prosecute those parading their hatred through the streets of London every week, this Saturday especially.
William Turner is a seasoned U.K. correspondent with a deep understanding of domestic affairs. With a passion for British politics and culture, he provides insightful analysis and comprehensive coverage of events within the United Kingdom.
