A political project

Further to Melanie Phillips’ article on the holocaust memorial (This new Holocaust memorial would be an awful desecration,

8 October). There are over 300 holocaust memorials around the world. Nevertheless antisemitism and anti-Israelism grows, because even the most lavish of them do not work as educational tools. They avoid the issues that face us as living Jews, commemorating dead Jews exclusively and sometimes taking the opportunity to shift the blame by changing the historical narrative.

At UK holocaust remembrance events, the worst Israelhaters are to be found in the front row and signing the book of remembrance, thus badging themselves as “anti-racist”, and one can be sure that they will be the first to pay their respects at the memorial in the same vein. Those who traipse through the planned exhibition in its 45 minute route on their way to the Gardens cafe will learn nothing of Jewish history and post war revival, and it is noteworthy that Lord Sacks did not support it: his advice was that the holocaust should be set in the context of Jewish history.

Dissent has been met with insults, not reason. The Board of Deputies has not taken a vote on the project. The Imperial War Museum has opened a new and entirely appropriate Holocaust Gallery — so why is this not sufficient for the memorial supporters? They include some who have made very large donations to the Conservative Party, but they are devoid of holocaust scholars (not even the Chief Rabbi would claim to be one.)

The Foundation chairs, Lord Pickles and Ed Balls, have explained why only the Westminster location will do. It is because the framework of the “learning centre” is Christian redemptive theology and epiphany, in this case the emergence from the centre to look directly at Parliament, symbolising to them salvation in Britain. It is no coincidence that they are both leaders of the “British Values” Project.

It is deeply wounding that the deaths of my family members and others should be co-opted for this political project.

Ruth Deech

House of Lords

I find myself in the rare situation of agreeing with Melanie Phillips. The process of agreeing the memorial has been flawed with a massive democratic deficit. I was one of a group of Holocaust scholars who sent a critique of the project to the Westminster Council planning enquiry and whose evidence was heard and treated with great respect. Much of our critique was eloquently utilised by Richard Evans in his excellent piece in the New Statesman.

Those opposing the memorial from sincere and ethical standpoints are, to re-work a phrase often associated with the Labour Party, a ‘broad synagogue’, and that we represent the secular and religious, left and right, Jewish and nonJewish, shows how our concern needs to be taken seriously.

I ask for a sober, open debate to be held about the proposed memorial and whether those who rightly want the Holocaust to be remembered in the UK should do so through enhanced education at school and higher education level rather than what started off as a vanity project for the now much diminished in reputation, David Cameron. Professor Tony Kushner Parkes Institute, University of Southampton

To have obtained agreement to site the memorial so close to the Houses of Parliament is a great achievement and will inevitably bring the subject of antisemitism to the attention of many people who would never otherwise have thought about it. To talk about dead Jews being

more important to the people who run Britain than live ones, as does Melanie Phillips, completely misses the point.

To suggest that remembering victims of subsequent genocide relativises the extermination of the Jews is an incredibly insular remark. Sadly, we are not the only people to have suffered. It seems that Melanie does not understand that the purpose of Holocaust education is to give an opportunity to educate people about antisemitism and all other forms of racism, bigotry and hatred.

To make matters worse, does Melanie not realise that Germany was a democracy before Hitler came to power?

With regard to “grandstanding” and her other accusations, there is a large number of honourable and sincere people who support this Memorial and her comments are as divisive and offensive as those she seeks to attribute to others.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let us not allow this unique opportunity to slip away.

Peter Bohm,

London N20