We are each other’s security
JVL Introduction
Joseph Finlay’s latest Torat Albion blog is devoted to a discussion of the Manchester tragedy and its wider ramifications.
“We mourn the dead, condemn the perpetrator, allow the police to investigate what happened and get on with our (Jewish) lives.”
But, says Finlay, it seldom stops there.
We try to look for someone to blame and, in this case, all too quickly “the entire focus of the political class, egged on by reckless Jewish communal leaders, has been on the pro-Palestine movement”.
How safe does it make us when “Starmer and others are effectively saying ‘you can’t protest against genocide as it would upset the Jews’”?
Not only is this offensive, assuming that British Jews support genocide and oppose Palestinian rights. It is also dangerous.
And politicians express a disturbing philosemitism with talk of “our Jewish community” in a way they would never talk of “our Catholic community” or our Muslim community”.
They then rush to a “more security” strategy: higher walls, more policing. That strategy has in effect been in operation for over forty years. The truth is, suggests Finlay, the Manchester attack should be understood as a failure of our communal security system.
We should see this attack in a wider setting of increased violence in British life, alongside the murder of Jo Cox, the Finsbury Park mosque attack, the London Bridge killing.
Maybe, suggests Finlay, we should do security together, for each other. Jews and Muslims together, and indeed with all who care for the safety of their neighbours. Ideally pro-Palestine campaigners would also get involved in protecting both synagogues and mosques.
Thee is much to reflect on here…
RK
This article was originally published by Torat Albion on Wed 8 Oct 2025. Read the original here.
We are each other’s security
Rejecting the British state’s philosemitic embrace in the wake of the Manchester attack
Loading article text…
Hello. Very interesting article but I have a few questions:
1. What do you mean when you describe “non-Jewish politicians” as “the leaders of this conflation” when you acknowledge that they have in fact “been echoing the rhetoric of Jewish communal leaders particularly the Chief Rabbi and BoD”?
2. You say that this leadership is based on the government’s “own self -interest” which you describe as the “middleman theory”. Is the “middleman theory” connected at all to the discredited “middle agent theory”? If not, what’s the difference between them?
3. You also refer to the British state’s “own geopolitical interests” to explain the state’s philosemitic embrace/conflation. What are those geopolitical interests?
4. What is antisemitic about Jenrick’s rant about the A-G?
I really enjoyed this well thought out article. Voices like David’s should be heard on msm instead of these rabble rousers in public life who whip up hatred and fear for their own agenda. Well done