Was the attack on a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur “shocking”, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer says? Various other public figures, from Zara Sultana, to David Cameron, to the King have described themselves as being “shocked” by the appalling events.
The word “shocking” has different shades of meaning. In one sense it means that something is upsetting and immoral — and the attack was certainly “shocking” in those terms. In another sense, though, it means that something is surprising — and there was nothing surprising about yesterday’s incident.
Britain lives under the constant threat of jihadist violence. Around 75 per cent of British counter-terrorism work involves averting Islamist extremism (with the other 25 per cent being devoted to far right extremists). Thousands of individuals are being monitored as potentially dangerous.
The danger is very real. In Manchester alone, there has been the Manchester Arena bombing, which left 22 dead, and a stabbing spree at Manchester Victoria Station. In 2009, a conspiracy to bomb a Manchester shopping centre failed.
The authorities have plans in place so that after terrorist attacks, “statements, vigils and inter-faith events” can be exhibited with “controlled spontaneity”. So, again, a terrorist attack might be shocking in the sense of being appalling, but it isn’t shocking in the sense of being unexpected.
Nor is it surprising that a terrorist has targeted Jews. Since October 2023, Islamic extremists have of course been especially unhinged over Israel. That year, an asylum seeker murdered a random old man in Hartlepool in the name of Gaza. This year, what was alleged to have been an Iranian terror plot was foiled, with speculation being that it was targeting a synagogue.
Similar incidents have taken place on mainland Europe. In France, last year, an Algerian man with a Palestinian flag tied around his waist tried to set fire to a synagogue. In Greece, two men threw “flammable materials” at an Athens synagogue. Yesterday, prosecutors in Berlin accused three men of being Hamas militants planning attacks on Jewish institutions.
It would be wrong for there to be a broad backlash against pro-Palestinian voices. There is no contradiction between criticising Israel and abhorring violence against Jews — just as there would be no contradiction between criticising Islamic extremism and abhorring violence against Muslims. Still, Britain has seen enough outright anti-Semitism on its streets to make this attack less than surprising. (Recall the convoy of vehicles being recorded driving around London broadcasting threats against Jews.)
There have also been too many voices who have flirted with the language of violence. To be clear — at this point we don’t know enough about the Manchester attack to blame anybody but the perpetrator. Who inspired him? We don’t know. But while someone might have a boutique peaceful meaning for a phrase like “globalise the intifada”, could they be shocked if someone else framed it in violent terms? And when people call for us to “fight zionists”, well — what do they expect us to do? Again, no one should use this attack for broad-brush opportunistic criticism of political opponents. But people who have indulged in the rhetoric of violence can hardly be surprised to be associated with actual violence.
So, there is nothing at all surprising about this turn of events. Politicians who have been involved in the development of multicultural Britain would be miserably dishonest or horrendously naive to claim not to have known that there would be dangerous militants among the millions of Muslims who have been invited into the country. Years of attacks and thwarted attacks, meanwhile, have made the totally predictable completely obvious.
An event like this should not surprise us. It was in fact depressingly foreseeable
This doesn’t just relate to Islamic extremism. If, God forbid, there was an incident of far right terrorism, one could hardly claim to be “shocked” in the sense of being surprised. Such incidents have taken place — or been narrowly averted — enough times in the UK and elsewhere as to make them anticipatable, and one can say that without diminishing the extent to which they are disgusting and disgraceful.
Again, I appreciate that “shocked” has multiple meanings. Perhaps Keir Starmer and others mean that they are appalled, horrified, disgusted et cetera. I’m sure they are. But the fact is that “shock”, as a term, creates ambiguity, deliberately or otherwise. One can at least infer that it relates to something which should surprise us. But an event like this should not surprise us. It was in fact depressingly foreseeable. A realistic assessment of the state of the UK should start with that.
