Tag Archives: Hadash

Heaton Park Synagogue

The open day for the new building of Heaton Park Synagogue felt enlightening, literally. Before that, we had used a narrow, single story building with few windows, which must have been very crowded on high holy days. Aged six, I went with my family to marvel at the modern, tall structure. The front, including the doors, was made of glass that extended far above me, flooding the vestibule with light. Inside, the ceiling reached up two high storeys, above the tiered women’s section. Light streamed in through stained glass windows in the wall which housed the Holy Ark, where the scrolls of the Torah were kept. Then, in 1967, there was no fence between the synagogue and Middleton Road, only a low brick wall; no security guards, nothing to stop anyone from walking in. After services, people lingered to chatter in that open space, clearly visible from the street in our best clothes. I loved the slow, leisurely pace the congregants took on the way home, more than a few along the street where my family lived. These were the streets of our community, where we were safe, where we belonged.

A vigil at Heaton Park synagogue one week after the attack. Crowds (Sean Hansford | Manchester Evening News)

A few years after my Bar Mitzva at the Heaton Park synagogue in April 1974, I stopped attending altogether. My religious phase was over and so my connection to the congregation faded, other than through my parents who emigrated to Israel in 1982. (I followed them two years later but returned to the UK in 1995). But my roots in that congregation and my sense of belonging in that building have never been lost. So when I heard the news of the terror attack on Heaton Park on the morning of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), it was as if the perpetrator, ‘pledged allegiance to Islamic State‘, had smashed the glass front of the synagogue and along with it the warmth of those memories. I did not recognise the names of the victims, Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, but then a cousin told me that Melvin had lived over the road from them as children and my brother thought he might have gone to King David’s school with him. This was an attack that struck close to home, too close.

But not all of my childhood memories of Heaton Park synagogue are wrapped with warmth. Inevitably, on Yom Kippur my thoughts go back to October 6th 1973, and my feelings touch the tender, pious twelve-year old I was then. I have blogged twice about that day on which Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel.

I should remember how tangible my worry was, how the terror of annihilation tasted dry like my fasting mouth, how the anxiety felt like my empty stomach. … Was Israel about to be destroyed? Were the Jews going to be thrown into the sea? Was this somehow God’s judgment? What sin had I or we committed that deserved such punishment?

About the Israeli experience of 1973 I wrote:

My adult, critical understanding cannot undo the horror I felt when I listened to voice recordings of Israeli soldiers in positions on the edge of the Suez Canal as they were being overrun by Egyptian forces. The terror of impending individual annihilation is compounded doubly. First, by a fear that in killing the individuals, the collectivity will also be extinguished and second, by a dread that this surely must not be happening, that now we are strong and able to defend ourselves, if we are attacked, we will vanquish our foes. … the trauma of 1973 lingers, attaching itself to other traumas which cannot be dispelled by critical historical awareness, only by confronting the trauma.

The trauma of October 6th 1973 mingles with the shock of Yom Kippur 2025, which mingles with the trauma of October 7th 2023. So, what to do with the trauma, the fear, the shock, the loss, the deep sense of vulnerability?

For the generation of Israelis who fought the war, their fear gave way not to despondency but to anger at the ineptitude and negligence of the country’s leaders. While for some the Labour establishment remained the focus of their frustration, others came to understand that as citizens they could no longer trust their government to do what is best for Israel. Following President Sadat’s visit to Israel in 1977, a group of the ‘1973 generation’ wrote to then Prime Minister Begin in the famous ‘officers’ letter’ to argue for a path of peace rather than settlements, and the Peace Now movement was born. 

Today more than one generation of Israelis have felt the losses of the failure in 2023 to conceive of and anticipate Hamas’ attack, and more than one generation will feel the consequences of the vengeful, genocidal response of Israel’s civil and military leadership, the damage to Israel’s reputation and the brutalization of its society that led it to perpetrate a second Nakba. And today Israelis do not need to wait several years for the activists who know that they cannot rely on their government. There are all those who, despite their government’s stupidity and stubbornness, campaigned for two years in Israel for a deal to exchange the hostages for Palestinian prisoners, which they knew meant ending the war, some of whom have set up Kumu (Arise), a movement for national renewal. There are those who already knew on or before October 7th that there should be no war, such as the Arab-Jewish Hadash party and the Jewish-Palestinian Standing Together grassroots movement.

But what about we Jews in the UK? What do we do with our trauma? Jonathan Freedland wrote about “Jews wanting to huddle against the cold, to be among those to whom they do not have constantly to justify or explain themselves.” Emma Barnett, also once a young member of the congregation, felt in the immediate aftermath of the attack that she was ” left with myself and to confront how I choose to respond. … I don’t feel much like being virtuous. While Jews have been fearful for a long time as antisemitic attacks and vandalism ramp up around the world, an attack at a UK synagogue represents a threshold being crossed in this country.” Rachel Cunliffe focused on the context since October 7th:

The actions of a country 3,000 miles away of which I am not a citizen have left me feeling unwelcome in the place I was born. Pick a side. The isolating irony is that I can’t. Two years ago, I was blissfully ambivalent about the need for a Jewish state, a haven of last resort for a diaspora persecuted through the centuries. Now that I’ve seen how a significant portion of the country I think of as home really feels about the Jews, it seems more necessary than ever, even as that haven descends into darkness.

I have felt all of those things too, from upset that all the Manchester synagogues had to be evacuated on Yom Kippur 2025, even though it is decades since I have been to a Yom Kippur service; to wondering if I would be allowed in if I rushed round to huddle with Jews at my local synagogue; to feeling like going to settle in one of the kibbutzim overrun by Hamas on October 7 2023. Like Rachel Cunliffe, I have felt pressure to pick a side, which I have resisted through activism with UK Friends of Standing Together which grieves for both Israeli victims of Hamas’ October 7th massacre and Palestinian victims of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Those are comforting feelings, but do they confront the trauma?

Perhaps a better path is indicated by Hadash and Standing Together in Israel, an activist path of solidarity and partnership across national, religious and ethnic boundaries. It will not be straightforward. Many UK Muslims might be repelled by the knowledge that two thirds of UK Jews identify as Zionists, until they hear from us that it does not mean we support Israel’s conduct in Gaza, but the principle of a state of refuge from antisemitism. We Jews will have much to learn too, about the extent and depth of Islamophobia, from which we are not immune. Perhaps, then, rather than huddling alone we could huddle together with one of the traumatized victims of the Islamophobic arson attack on the mosque in Peacehaven who has not left his home since? In Nottingham, I can huddle with volunteers at the Salaam Shalom kitchen, a Muslim-Jewish charity project. And we could huddle with the Manchester Council of Mosques, which declared:

Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the Jewish community at this distressing time… Any attempt to divide us through violence or hatred will fail – we remain united in our commitment to peace and mutual respect… It is vital at moments like these that we stand together as one Manchester – united against hatred and committed to peace, justice and respect for all.

Such expressions of solidarity does not in itself tackle the trauma, but it is a step towards active solidarity that can. And yes, that statement describes a Manchester and British community where I would happily walk the streets, feel safe, and belong.

The Mark of Cain: Genocide in Gaza

Cain was the first perpetrator of a violent crime, the crime of murder, of fratricide. According to the Biblical story, God asks Cain where Abel is after Cain had killed him, to which Cain responds “Am I my brother’s keeper?” My father loved to repeat that phrase so I grew up with a sense that we siblings were supposed to take of each other, a sense which developed into a broader feeling of social responsibility, of care for others. For his crime Cain was cursed with failure of all his farming endeavours and to be “a fugitive and a vagabond.” When Cain protested that he would be slain in his wanderings, God put a mark on him, a warning sign that others should not punish him further, at the risk of sevenfold vengeance. Although the mark is not given to Cain as the punishment, as the mark of shame for taking a life made in the image of God, it is nonetheless a life-long sign of guilt.

David Scott (1806-1849); Cain Degraded (Remorse); Photo credit: Royal Scottish Academy of Art & Architecture

The accusation brought by South Africa that Israel is committing genocide of Palestinians feels like an unbearable mark of shame and guilt. How can it be the the Jewish state is accused of genocide, less than a century since genocide was committed against the Jewish people? Surely, we are the victims of genocide, not the perpetrators? How can this be any more than a scandalous libel, a blood libel as Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy said? It’s especially galling so soon after the horrendous attack by Hamas on October 7th that reminded us so starkly of our vulnerability, that looks itself like an act of genocide. Are we to be denied the right to defend ourselves just because our enemy uses its population as human shields and fights from within the civilian infrastructure? “There can hardly be a charge more false and more malevolent than the allegation against Israel of genocide, ” said Israeli Foreign Ministry legal adviser Tal Becker in response to the South African case on January 12th. This is the line of defence against the genocide accusation taken by Israel at the International Court of Justice. We are the victims, not the perpetrators. And some us still bear those other marks, those numbers inscribed on our flesh by the other murderers, before we had a state with which to defend ourselves, when at the whim of persecuting states we could be turned into fugitive vagabonds at a moment’s notice.

I leave to the judges of the court and international law experts to determine the validity of this defence. In part, Jewish and Israeli outrage at and revulsion from the accusation of genocide is prompted by the definition of genocide in the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. There it is stated that

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Genocide does not then mean another Holocaust, extermination camps and gas chambers. It does not mean the destruction of Palestinians in whole, only in part. Killing 1% of the population Gaza, most of them women and children, the displacement of 85% of the population, the destruction of a third of the buildings and the creation of circumstances meaning one in four households is at risk of starvation means Israel does have a case to answer. It also means that Hamas is also open to accusations of genocide, but as it is not a state that has ratified the Genocide Convention, it cannot be brought before the International Court of Justice. Instead, those horrendous crimes are under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as well as Israeli courts.

One of Israel’s key legal difficulties at the Hague is of its own making, the multitude of statements by politicians, official spokespersons, military officers, news anchors, commentators and journalists that appear to advocate or condone genocide. Legal experts say that the hardest part of a genocide case to make is usually the demonstration of intent to commit genocide, but in this instance there has been a lot of unguarded talk. I will come back to Biblical stories to focus on one statement picked out by the South African team, by Prime Minister Netanyahu on October 28th: “you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”. The Amalekites were one of the tribes whom the Israelites fought after their Exodus from Egypt, during their sojourn in the desert, before conquering Canaan. In the first telling, in the Book of Exodus 17:8-16, no reason is given for why their remembrance must be blotted out, but Deuteronomy 25:17-19 tells us that “they smote the hindmost of thee, all that were feeble in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and … [Amalek] feared not God.” The Amalekites reappear in the First Book of Samuel 15, when Samuel tells King Saul that God reminds him of what the Amalekites did to Israel and orders him to “go and smite Amaleq, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This last passage is quoted in the South African case, seemingly as proof that Netanyahu intended the Israeli troops about to enter Gaza to act similarly.

Joshua fighting Amalek, By Philip De Vere – Phillip Medhurst Collection of Bible illustrations. housed at Belgrave Hall Leicester, made possible by the Kevin Victor Freestone Bequest.

In his rebuttal of the accusation that the accumulation of similar utterances to Netanyahu’s amount to incitement to genocide, Malcolm Shaw argued that the South African team had misunderstood the place of Amalek in Judaism but that there was no time for a theological debate. He is certainly right that within Judaism the literal meaning should not be taken as a commandment, and even if it were, neither the Palestinians or Hamas are literally ancient Amalekites. Shaw goes on to claim that the quotations brought by South Africa “are clearly rhetorical, made in the immediate aftermath of a [traumatic] event.” Again he is right, but not in the way he intended the word “rhetorical,” in the everyday sense of an empty statement, but in the sense of rhetoric as persuasive statements uttered to move their audiences. In their spoken presentation, the South African team referred to the normalization of genocide discourse in Israel, indicating an accumulative pattern of speech and writing across politics and media. They showed a clip of dancing Israeli soldiers, singing that they understood their commandment to “wipe out the seed of Amalek” and their operational slogan that there are “no uninvolved” in Gaza, meaning no innocent civilians. Netanyahu’s rhetoric was clearly understood by the soldiers, as well as the synecdoche whereby today’s Palestinians stand in for the Biblical Amalekites. Whether the soldiers in the clip acted on that understanding, we do not know. But in the context of the rise of the Jewish-supremacist, messianic far-right in Israel and its inclusion in the current government, the meaning of Netanyahu’s statement, along others calling explicitly for a second Nakba, is chillingly dangerous and irresponsible, at least murderous if not genocidal in intent, as my colleague Joshua Shanes noted at the time.

The governing discourse in Israel today is, if not genocidal than at least politicidal, a discourse in which there is no truth to Palestinian collective existence, Palestinian peoplehood and connection to the land. In their eulogy for their brother Hayim who was murdered by Hamas (which of course has its own murderous discourse) on October 7th, his sibling Noy said:

My brother was always active for peace … He spoke truth in the face of – as Foucault said – the power that forces discourse up on us, the power that forces us to say certain things, and not say other things. Hayim spoke truth to power – even at the price of being the one who is different, the one who is strange

The power of Israeli discourse was evident last week when 85 members of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, from most of the opposition as well as coalition parties, signed up to an impeachment process for one of their number, Ofer Cassif, a representative of Hadash, the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality. He had signed a petition in favour of South Africa’s submission to the ICJ, although from some of the reactions he might as well have joined the petition to the court itself. He is very strange to them, very different, abnormal, and what he says does not make sense to them. He speaks a truth that does not have a place in their consensus. He wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that

My constitutional duty is to Israeli society and all its residents, not to a government whose members and its coalition are calling for ethnic cleansing and even actual genocide. They are the ones who harm the country and the people, they are the ones who led to South Africa’s petition to The Hague.

It will pain me deeply if, after its long deliberations, the International Court of Justice finds that Israel, the Jewish state, committed genocide. It would be a mark of Cain that the state would bear forever. The atrocities of October 7th pained and shocked me deeply, as does the fate of the hostages, now in their 100th day of captivity. But it also pains me that the State of Israel is inflicting so much harm on Palestinians in what it claims is self-defence but seems like a prolonged act of vengeance without achievable and defined goals. At this time of intense polarization, the social media mobs and the gatekeepers of discourse insist that Palestinians can be only either victims or perpetrators, that Israelis can be only victims or perpetrators. But what if we are both victims and perpetrators? If we can speak in a discourse that allows for that possibility, can we then not also be our brothers’ keepers?