
Ten years after it was first announced, Britain's Holocaust memorial has still not been built. Why?
Last January, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, a 98-year-old
Born in 1925 in Poland, Ms Lasker-Wallfisch was sent to the concentration camp when she was 18 and only spared because she could play the cello, becoming part of the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz.
She banged the table in frustration as she decried the proposed monument – a collection of 23 large bronze 'fins' jutting out of the ground – and subterranean ''learning centre', which she said was 'almost an insult.'
'What are we learning now that we haven't learned in 80 years?' she said. 'We shouldn't kill each other? Good idea'.
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, celebrated every year to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, Ms Lasker-Wallfisch, now 99, is one of Britain's last living links with the Holocaust.
Against a background of war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and international fury at Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership of Israel, anti-Semitic attacks in the UK are at record levels according to the Jewish security charity the Community Security Trust (CST). The need to remember the Holocaust has rarely been more urgent. So why has the proposed monument, more than a decade in the planning, become one of the most fraught schemes in government?
Despite enjoying cross-party political support, the proposal has been the target of concerted opposition, including a successful judicial review. This prompted a new law, the Holocaust Memorial Bill, to facilitate the construction of the memorial and underground learning centre. The estimated costs have more than tripled, from £50m to in excess of £150m, including at least £75m of public money.
Critics argue that the proposal, designed by the scandal-hit architect David Adjaye, will take the wrong form in the wrong place at the wrong price, carried along by political inertia. At worst, they warn, the memorial could even misrepresent Britain's relationship to the Holocaust, or increase the risk of anti-Semitic attacks.
But supporters, including Sir Ephraim Mirvis, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth contend the memorial is essential. Last summer, Mirvis said the 'moral duty to preserve the lessons of the Holocaust could not be greater'.
'This [monument] … sends a timely message, not only about our national undertaking to remembering this dark period of our history but, more importantly, about the kind of future we want to create together,' he said.
Britain's relationship to the Holocaust is complicated. The Kindertransport, in which the UK took in nearly 10,000 mostly Jewish children from across Nazi-occupied Europe, was a compromise brought about by Parliament's reluctance to accept adult refugees. Other celebrations of Britain's resistance to Nazi Germany can be complicated by the sense that more could have been done to help.
It was not until 1979 that Michael Heseltine, as Margaret Thatcher's environment secretary, announced that there would be a permanent memorial to the Holocaust, opposite the Cenotaph on Whitehall. But nobody could agree on what exactly to put there. Lord Carrington, the foreign secretary, who won the Military Cross as a tank commander during Operation Market Garden in 1944, objected that the memorial had 'nothing to do with Britain.' The space on Whitehall is still empty.
In the end, a Holocaust memorial was built in Hyde Park, at the east of the Serpentine, and unveiled in 1983. It comprises two boulders on a bed of gravel, surrounded by a little copse of silver birch trees. On one of the boulders is an inscription, in Hebrew and English, with a quote from the Book of Lamentations: 'For these I weep. Streams of tears flow from my eyes because of the destruction of my people.' Although it is elegant, there is no denying that it is out-of-the-way and little visited. A statue at London's Liverpool Street station, meanwhile, commemorates
Nevertheless, the Holocaust is hardly ignored in the UK. The Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, less than a mile from Parliament, has a widely admired permanent Holocaust exhibition, which receives more than 600,000 visitors a year and has just been spruced up as part of the museum's £33m refurbishment. There is a National Holocaust Museum Centre and Museum in Nottinghamshire; Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield; and the Wiener Holocaust Library in Russell Square.
The saga over a new monument began in 2014 when then-Prime Minister David Cameron launched a Holocaust Commission to establish whether the UK needed to do more to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.
The commission reported back the following year and recommended a 'striking and prominent new National Memorial', along with a visitor centre which would teach tourists about the Holocaust. The report also argued that the British memorial should be located near the centre of government, echoing the prominent memorials in Berlin, Washington DC and Jerusalem.
They settled on Victoria Tower Gardens, a peaceful little Grade II-listed park by the Thames on the southern side of Parliament. Cameron said the memorial would stand beside Parliament 'as a permanent statement of our values as a nation'. The monument would cost around £50m and open in 2017. Seven years later, nothing has been built, after a litany of complications.
The location was controversial from the start. Victoria Tower Gardens is small and popular with local residents. There are already three memorials in it: the Emmeline & Christabel Pankhurst memorial, the Buxton Memorial Fountain to the abolition of slavery, and Rodin's sculpture, The Burghers of Calais. The winning design, by the architect David Adjaye, comprised 23 large bronze fins, creating 22 spaces to represent the countries most affected by the Holocaust, along with a subterranean visitor centre. The fins would loom over these other memorials and occupy a large percentage of the park's open space.
In an interview, Adjaye said 'disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking' behind his plan. In a further complication, in 2023 Adjaye was accused of sexual assault and harassment by three women who had worked with him. He denied the accusations but stepped back from the Holocaust memorial, among other projects.
Mirvis, for his part, refers to the creation of the memorial as a 'sacred task'.
'I appreciate that there are some detractors,' he wrote in Jewish News in 2020. 'There are some people who are opposed to this idea.
'I respect their views [...] but I beg to differ. I differ with them in the strongest, most passionate way. Locating this particular initiative and development in Victoria Tower Gardens is an inspirational choice of venue. It is a wonderful location.'
Residents have been less enthralled. 'I'm Jewish, and it's wonderful that there's a proposal to have a Holocaust memorial in the capital,' says Louise Hyams, a Conservative councillor on Westminster Council. 'But the one that's proposed is too large and overpowering. This was the ugliest of the proposals.
'More than that, the local residents value the park as somewhere they can go. In that area, there's a lot of social housing and people don't have gardens. They were very upset that this park would be taken away. It was the wrong monument in the wrong location. The atmosphere of the park would obviously change if there was a Holocaust memorial in it.' Others argued that the memorial would damage the park's flora, and increase the risk of flooding.
Hyams adds that the park will cause 'congestion' and might attract hostile as well as respectful visits. 'It is just going to cause trouble in that location,' she says. 'I don't want it to cause the opposite of what it wants to achieve. I don't want it to cause anti-semitism.' She believes the Imperial War Museum, with its existing Holocaust exhibition and large open spaces, would be a better location for any new memorial.
Perhaps the most concerted opposition to the memorial, however, has come from Baroness Deech, a Jewish crossbench peer whose father fled the Nazis to Britain. She queries the value not just of the selected design, but the whole concept of a memorial.
'There was a report recently that found around half the people in the world hold anti-Semitic views, even in places where there are no Jews,' she says. 'There are in the world over 300 Holocaust memorials and nobody seems ever to have carried out an impact assessment. Do they do any good? The answer is obviously 'no, they' don't. I think in part this is because they are more and more politicised, but also because they all place the Holocaust in a sort of box. 'This happened 80 years ago, it was the Nazis, the Germans, we're frightfully sorry, full stop. Nobody seems to draw the dotted line from then until now. It's as if they sanitize it, saying 'it was all a long time ago, it's hermetically sealed.'
She adds that the site next to Parliament, which has been chosen for political purposes, is also likely to make the memorial a target. In April 2024, police covered up the Hyde Park memorial out of fear vandals might deface it.
'[The new memorial] will be the focal point for vandalism, protest and worse,' Deech says. 'All the marches that go on at the moment will converge on Victoria Tower Gardens. I've studied this, and abstract memorials are more prone to being defaced than figurative ones. The Kindertransport memorial in Liverpool Street has remained untouched. But abstract ones like this one, which don't have any meaning, no appeal to the heart, will immediately get red paint all over them and worse. The ruination of the park, which is inevitable, will be blamed on the Jewish community, most of whom don't want it. It has been largely by non-Jews and imposed on the Jewish community whether they want it or not. The Holocaust survivors I've been in contact with don't want it, because they can see it's pointless.'
The proposal has carried on regardless. After a public enquiry, planning permission was finally granted for the memorial in July 2021. Four months later, the High Court allowed a legal challenge against that permission. Opponents argued that a London County Council Act from 1900 prohibited building in the park. The High Court overturned the planning permission the following April, a decision further upheld by the Court of Appeal. To build the memorial, Parliament would have to pass a new law. In February 2023, the government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill for this purpose. With cross-party support, it has passed easily through Parliament, despite the objections.
'It is perceived as risky for politicians to oppose it,' says Prof Richard Evans, one of the world's leading historians of the Second World War and a long-standing opponent of the scheme. Not only is the memorial 'rather ugly', he says, but the proposed study centre is 'really second rate.'
'There are better ways of commemorating the Holocaust,' he says. 'We need the best we can get. The proposals are not adequate. They run the risk of making this country look ridiculous.'
For Evans, part of the problem is the nature of the memorial itself, which he says risks distorting Britain's history with the Holocaust. 'I'm concerned it may give a misleading impression of Britain's response to Nazi anti-Semitism, which was not entirely laudable,' he says. 'There were many barriers put up to the emigration of Jews from Nazi Germany, although of course some very good things were done, like the Kindertransport. But to say that Britain was preserved because of democracy is seriously misleading. After all, it was the Weimar Republic's democracy that let in and was destroyed by the Nazis, leading to the Holocaust.' Britain's acceptance of Hitler's Anschluss with Austria, and the appeasement exemplified by the Munich Agreement, also helped create the conditions for the Holocaust.
Evans also believes that the memorial risks distracting from the serious business of educating people, especially young people, about the Holocaust, especially important given the
Seemingly undeterred by the opposition to the project, successive governments have continued to support it. After Sir Keir Starmer was elected Prime Minister in July, he doubled down on the plan.
'We will build that national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and build it next to Parliament, boldly, proudly, unapologetically,' he said, addressing the Holocaust Education Trust in September. 'Not as a Jewish community initiative, but as a national initiative - a national statement of the truth of the Holocaust and its place in our national consciousness, and a permanent reminder of where hatred and prejudice can lead.'
Last autumn Cameron, now Lord Cameron,
'Our goal has always been, in the shadow of Parliament, to have a memorial to events which started off in a parliament through a democratic process which became undemocratic,' he says. 'In Britain, America and other countries around the world, the political and democratic process found it very hard to engage with something that became the catastrophe of the 20th century. It was a difficult time when Parliament faced big dilemmas and didn't rise to the challenge.'
Given the momentum behind the Bill, there is little risk it will not make it through the Lords this year. Construction of the memorial seems likely to follow soon after. The builders need to get a move on. Otherwise, the dwindling number of Holocaust survivors may not live to see it, whether they want it or not.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Netanyahu's government could collapse over Israel's ultra-Orthodox military draft law
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a vote to dissolve parliament Wednesday and key coalition partners have threatened to bring down his government. Still, few think it's the end of the road for Israel's longest-serving prime minister, who has been battling corruption charges for years, or his far-right government, still in power after presiding over the security failures surrounding the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack. The move to dissolve, called by the opposition, will only pass if Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox coalition partners break with him over the failure to pass a law exempting their community from military service, an issue that has bitterly divided Israelis, especially during the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. The threats coming from the ultra-Orthodox could be posturing, and many expect Netanyahu to pull off a last-minute deal. But Wednesday's vote is the most serious challenge to Netanyahu's government since the war began, and the coalition's collapse could have major implications for Israel and the ongoing war. Why the ultra-Orthodox reject military service Most Jewish men are required to serve nearly three years of military service followed by years of reserve duty. Jewish women serve two mandatory years. But the politically powerful ultra-Orthodox, who make up roughly 13% of Israeli society, have traditionally received exemptions if they are studying full-time in religious seminaries. The exemptions — and the government stipends many seminary students receive through age 26 — have infuriated the general public. After Hamas' 2023 attack, Israel activated 360,000 reservists, its largest mobilization since the 1973 Mideast war. Israel is engaged in the longest active war in the country's history, which has stretched its robust military to the breaking point. Many reserve soldiers have served multiple rounds of duty in Gaza totaling hundreds of days. Some reserve soldiers are rejecting new call-ups. The number of Israelis continuing to report for reserve duty has dropped so low that the military has taken to social media to try to recruit people to keep serving. The enlistment exemption for the ultra-Orthodox goes back to Israel's 1948 founding, when small numbers of gifted scholars were exempt from the draft in response to the decimation of Jewish scholarship during the Holocaust. But with a push from politically powerful religious parties, the numbers have swelled to tens of thousands today. Israel's Supreme Court said the exemptions were illegal in 2017, but repeated extensions and government delay tactics have prevented a replacement law from being passed. Among Israel's Jewish majority, mandatory military service is largely seen as a melting pot and rite of passage. That's exactly why some ultra-Orthodox don't want their children to serve. 'It mixes together people with very different backgrounds, very different ideas, some people with very immoral ideas,' said Rabbi Ephraim Luft, 66, from the ultra-Orthodox stronghold of Bnei Barak. Luft said the community's dedication to upholding Jewish commandments protects the country as much as military service. 'Over thousands of years, the Jewish people have stood very strongly against any kind of decrees to force them to give up their religion, they've given up their lives for this,' Luft said. 'People have to understand there's no difference between the Spanish Inquisition or the Israeli draft law.' Why ultra-Orthodox parties would want to bring down the government Two parties belonging to the Haredim, or 'God-fearing' in Hebrew, are essential to Netanyahu's coalition. Both would need to vote to dissolve the government to force new elections, including Shas, which has traditionally been more supportive of Netanyahu. On Monday, a Shas spokesperson told an ultra-Orthodox radio program the party plans to vote in favor of dissolution, unless there is a breakthrough in negotiations. The other party, Degel HaTorah, has been threatening to leave the government since last week. 'Basically, they don't really care about the war and the economic situation of the state and anything else but their communal interest. And the focus of this communal interest is getting the exemption from serving in the army," said Shuki Friedman, an expert on religion and state affairs and vice president of the Jewish People Policy Institute, a Jerusalem think tank. Friedman and other experts say the current system is unsustainable. With its high birthrate, the ultra-Orthodox are the fastest-growing segment of Israel's population, at about 4% annually. Each year, roughly 13,000 ultra-Orthodox men reach the conscription age of 18, but less than 10% enlist, according to parliament's State Control Committee, which held a hearing examining the issue. The shock of the Oct. 7 attack appeared to ignite some enthusiasm among the ultra-Orthodox to serve, but no large enlistment materialized. The army has repeatedly declined to comment on the ultra-Orthodox enlistment rate. What happens if parliament is dissolved If the dissolution vote passes, it still faces a series of bureaucratic steps, including additional votes, that the government would likely drag on for weeks or months, said Gayil Talshir, a political science professor at Hebrew University. 'It will be like a gun that's been put into position, but that doesn't mean the coalition is over,' she said. Elections in Israel are scheduled for the fall of 2026. Both Talshir and Friedman believe it's unlikely the dissolution vote will pass Wednesday. If one ultra-Orthodox party is absent, the vote will not pass and another cannot be brought for six months, Talshir said. However, there's also a 'valid possibility' the rabbis who advise the ultra-Orthodox parties will say they've waited long enough for a draft exemption law, because they are facing enormous pressure from their communities, Friedman said. On Tuesday, top Haredi rabbis issued a religious decree emphasizing their stand against military service, which complicates the Haredi politicians' ability to negotiate, Friedman added. The army has issued thousands of draft notices to the ultra-Orthodox community, and those who refuse to serve can face arrest. While only around a dozen have been arrested after being stopped for trying to leave the country or for traffic violations, the fear this has inspired is significant, he added. Impact on the war in Gaza and the hostage crisis Netanyahu frequently cites the ongoing war as a reason Israel needs to provide a united front against its enemies. While the ultra-Orthodox parties remain part of the coalition, they want the war to end as quickly as possible, Talshir said. 'The Haredim think once the war is over, the pressure will be off them and they will be able to get their (military) exemption law,' she said.


The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
US imposes sanctions on alleged sham Palestinian charities
The U.S. Treasury Department on Tuesday imposed sanctions on five people and five entities across the Middle East, Africa and Europe, accusing them of being prominent financial supporters of Hamas' military wing under the pretense of conducting humanitarian work in the Gaza Strip and around the world. Those sanctioned include the Gaza-based charity Al Weam Charitable Society, which is accused of being controlled by Hamas, along with its executive director Muhammad Sami Muhammad Abu Marei. Turkey-based charity Filistin Vakfi and its President Zeki Abdullah Ibrahim Ararawi were also targeted for sanctions. Charities in Algeria, the Netherlands and Italy were also targeted for sanctions. The department is also targeting a separate charity linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP. A 2024 Treasury report on terrorist financing highlights how online crowdfunding is increasingly done under the guise of soliciting legitimate charitable donations, making it difficult to identify as terrorist financing. Because the majority of crowdfunding activity is legitimate, 'this status can make it more difficult for law enforcement attempting to investigate potential (terrorist financing) cases with a crowdfunding and online fundraising nexus," the report said.

The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Will the SNP's anti-nuclear energy policy survive?
Just take Wendy Wood, one of the founders of the National Party of Scotland – which later grew into the SNP. As early as 1953, the artist and Scottish independence campaigner was vocally against the nuclear power site Dounreay on the north coast of Caithness, which has been in the long process of being decommissioned since 1994. In the 1970s and 1980s, the wider anti-nuclear movement – which organised mass protests against the likes of Torness power station in East Lothian, which is set to close in 2030 – also had strong ties to pro-independence circles and the SNP. It's a link that has stood until today, with the wider Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) long backing Scottish independence. READ MORE: Former Sky Sports presenter banned from business for football betting scam The SNP, meanwhile, has itself had a long-standing commitment to block new nuclear projects through devolved planning powers. But Labour are pushing for nuclear energy to make a comeback across the UK, lumping pressure on the Scottish Government to do the same. On Tuesday, Keir Starmer promised there would be no more 'dithering' about backing nuclear power as the UK Government committed to the Sizewell C plant and the development of new small modular reactors (SMRs). The Prime Minister said the 'change of mindset' would help free the UK from reliance on international fossil fuel markets and prevent price spikes such as those in the wake of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Scottish Labour, of course, were at the ready with anti-SNP attack lines. 'A Scottish Labour government with Anas Sarwar as First Minister will end the SNP's ban on nuclear power which is blocking jobs and investment from being created in Scotland,' Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said. The SNP, for the time being, are not for moving. Acting Energy Secretary Gillian Martin said in response to the announcement that the Scottish Government will continue to focus on renewable energy not nuclear power. The party's energy spokesperson at Westminster, Dave Doogan, also hit out at the UK Government. "The evidence is clear that nuclear is extortionate, takes decades to build and the toxic waste is a risk to local communities – Scotland's future is in renewables, carbon capture and links to Europe, not more money for white elephants,' he said. But could that be changing? Polls certainly indicate that Scots aren't totally opposed to the idea of nuclear power. SNP supporters too – over half of the party's voters believe nuclear power should be part of Scotland's mix of clean energy generation, a poll suggested last month. The Opinium survey for the campaign group Britain Remade (which, to note, was founded by a former energy and climate adviser to Boris Johnson) found 57% of those who voted for the party in last year's general election believe nuclear power should be included in Scotland's energy mix to meet the 2045 net zero target. READ MORE: Palestinian shop 'abruptly evicted' from Edinburgh property after 12 years A total of 56% of Scots thought nuclear power should be part of Scotland's clean energy mix to meet the targets, while 23% disagreed, and 21% said they did not know. This isn't a totally new phenomenon, either. Ipsos polling in 2022 found that more of the Scottish public support the building of more nuclear power stations in Scotland (39%) than oppose it (32%). Meanwhile, an SNP source told The National last month that the party's stance on atomic energy is softening. 'The younger membership honestly couldn't give two shits about this sort of stuff,' they said. 'The younger membership are quite distant from CND.' The source also said that Labour continuing to pursue the Tory nuclear policy might eventually make the SNP stance appear 'dated' but predicted any changes in policy would come further down the line given the Holyrood election is in just a year's time. But will Scottish Labour's recent shock win in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election change things? Before last year's General Election, John Swinney scrapped the Nicola Sturgeon and Bute House Agreement-era 'presumption against' new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. Instead, going forward, the party said it would look at licenses on a "rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis". Will the party take this so-called 'pragmatic' approach with nuclear, too?