The Manchester Synagogue Attack and Its Aftermath

A Day of Atonement Turned to Tragedy

The attack on the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Manchester on the morning of Sunday, 5th October 2025, remains a scar on the national consciousness. Occurring on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the timing of the assault was not merely opportunistic; it was a deliberate act of maximal violation, transforming a day of solemn reflection into one of terror and mourning.

An individual, later identified as a 23-year-old man from Manchester, drove a vehicle at high speed into the synagogue’s outer wall before attempting to gain entry armed with a machete.

The facts, now established beyond doubt, are chilling. An individual, later identified as a 23-year-old man from Manchester, drove a vehicle at high speed into the synagogue’s outer wall before attempting to gain entry armed with a machete. The intervention of community security staff was immediate and heroic, successfully preventing the attacker from entering the main building where over 300 people were gathered in prayer. Though the loss of life was averted inside, the attacker’s actions left two security volunteers with life-changing injuries and plunged the community into shock.

The Political Vector of Hate

The subsequent reaction, particularly towards the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, immediately established the political dimension of the tragedy. For months, Jewish communal groups had warned of an unprecedented surge in antisemitism, often directly linked to shifts in the Middle East and the political rhetoric surrounding them.

The criticism directed at Starmer’s government went beyond mere negligence. Critics argued that the government, had actively contributed to the climate of hate. This argument centred on the government’s formal recognition of the State of Palestine just days before the attack, on 21st September 2025.

This recognition was championed by senior Labour figures, most notably Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who fulfilled an earlier pledge by stating the UK had a “moral responsibility” to keep the two-state solution alive. He stressed that the move was not about legitimising Hamas, but about supporting the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination. Foreign Secretary David Lammy played a key role in articulating the diplomatic rationale, arguing it was essential to sustain hopes for a negotiated peace settlement. Furthermore, Deputy Prime Minister Yvette Cooper was listed as a co-author of the official announcement, helping frame the decision as part of a broader international effort.

The Justification: Starmer’s ‘Moral Responsibility’

The use of the phrase “moral responsibility” by Prime Minister Starmer was the foundational justification for the UK’s policy shift, marking a major departure from the traditional stance that Palestinian statehood should only come at the end of a negotiated peace process. The government’s rationale rested on three key pillars:

1. Reviving the Two-State Solution: The primary diplomatic goal was to prevent the complete demise of the two-state solution. Starmer argued that with Israeli settlement expansion accelerating and the situation on the ground worsening, recognition was necessary now to keep the possibility of a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state alive.
2. Humanitarian Imperative: The catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the high civilian death toll following the 7th October 2023 attacks were cited as reasons for immediate, urgent action. Ministers argued that a “moral responsibility” compelled them to act, rather than wait for conditions they believed Israel was making impossible to meet.
3. Historical Debt: While often unspoken, the recognition also tacitly acknowledged the UK’s unique historical involvement in the region as the former mandatory power, suggesting a moral obligation to help resolve the conflict that the UK’s actions centuries ago helped to create.

Opposing the Approach

The catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the high civilian death toll following the 7th October 2023 attacks were cited as reasons for immediate, urgent action. Israel, a democratic nation & Palestinian Authority, a authoritarian regime. Where can the two meet?

The UK’s unilateral shift was met with fierce condemnation from political opponents, diplomatic allies, and many community leaders who saw the move as strategically flawed and morally corrosive. The core of the opposition focused on three security and diplomatic principles:

1. Rewarding Extremism: Critics argued that granting recognition outside a negotiated settlement was seen, particularly by Hamas and its supporters, not as a humanitarian gesture but as a direct reward for the use of terrorism and mass violence. This belief, opponents warned, would not encourage peace but rather incentivise further conflict and undermine the release of remaining hostages.
2. Undermining Leverage for Institutional Change: A central tenet of opposition was that unilateral recognition removed the only significant piece of diplomatic leverage the West held over the Palestinian Authority (PA). By granting statehood upfront, the UK reduced the pressure on the PA to enact crucial anti-corruption reforms, end the controversial “Pay-to-Slay” programme, and, most importantly, unify governance between the PA in the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip—prerequisites widely considered essential for a functional, peaceful state.
3. Fracturing Western Unity: The move created significant diplomatic strain, particularly with the United States, which maintained its position that statehood must result from direct negotiations between the parties. Critics feared that breaking from the long-standing Anglo-American consensus on this issue would weaken the West’s collective ability to influence events in the Middle East and compromise UK-US relations.

The Political Vector of Hate (Continued)

The diplomatic shift, critics argued, created a profoundly higher baseline level of anti-Jewish hostility,

To many, the policy was a grotesque betrayal, seen as rewarding terror and politically emboldening the extremist elements already fuelling anti-Jewish hostility on the streets and online. This diplomatic shift, critics argued, created a profoundly higher baseline level of anti-Jewish hostility, of which the Manchester attack was merely the most violent manifestation. It is this perception of government complicity that led to Lammy being booed and met with shouts of “Shame on you” by members of the community when he attended the vigil.

Pay To Slay: The Moral Failure and Political Culpability in “No Place For Hate”

What is the ‘Pay-to-Slay’ Mechanism?

‘Pay-to-Slay’ is the widely adopted critical term for the financial programme, which is rooted in Palestinian Authority Law of Prisoners No. 19 of 2004. This morally degenerate PA legislation mandates a system of financial payments given to security prisoners held in Israeli jails—including those convicted of terrorism—and the families of those killed while carrying out attacks. The programme is officially administered through the Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund and the Prisoners Fund.

The core moral failure is the law’s explicit tiered payment structure. This structure means the amount paid increases in direct proportion to the length of the prison sentence, effectively creating a financial incentive for the most brutal acts:

• Prisoner Salary (Maximum Reward): Terrorists who survive their attacks and are sentenced to the longest terms (25 years or more) receive the highest payments—a monthly “salary” that can reach approximately $3,000 to $3,500 USD. This structure provides the maximum financial reward for surviving the attack and incurring the longest possible sentence.
• Martyr Stipend (Family Support): The family of a terrorist killed during an attack (a “martyr”) receives a lower, fixed monthly stipend, typically around $800 to $1,000 USD plus small add-ons for dependents.

Because longer sentences are imposed for the most severe crimes, this PA law systematically promotes, rewards, and incentivises acts of violence and terror. The financial system is thus designed to offer the highest, most consistent reward for surviving a major attack and entering the prison system, which in turn imposes decades of custodial costs on Israel.

Law No. 19— actively promotes

violence. ‘Pay to Slay‘

a “salary” that can reach approximately $3,000 to $3,500 USD. a month

The Palestinian Authority law systematically promotes, rewards, and incentivises acts of violence and terror.

Exposure of a Moral and Political Betrayal

The attack exposed the “No Place For Hate” mantra not merely as a failure of policy, but as a severe moral and political betrayal. This crisis of conscience stemmed directly from the government’s refusal to link diplomatic action to ethical standards. Critics argued the Starmer government made a critical diplomatic error by rewarding the Palestinian Authority (PA) with recognition while it maintained a law—Law No. 19—that actively promotes violence.

This is crucial: the mechanism is not operated by Hamas; it is a fundamental policy of the internationally recognised Palestinian Authority.

This decision, critics claim, carried a clear, calculated culpability: it politically emboldened the extremist narratives that inevitably led to violence on British soil. The government’s immediate response was not a display of robust leadership but a demonstration of cowardice, offering boilerplate condolences that were profoundly insensitive to the community’s terror. The Jewish community did not need standard-issue sympathy; it demanded fierce accountability for the political calculation that seemingly legitimised the climate of hostility. The Manchester attack laid bare the dangerous disconnect between the protected halls of Westminster and the violent reality faced by British Jews, who were left feeling tragically alone and abandoned by the very state that vowed to protect them.

The Long Road to Recovery

The Heaton Park Synagogue, along with the entire Jewish community, has begun the long, arduous process of recovery. This includes not only physical repairs but addressing the deep-seated trauma and psychological impact of the attack.

The event has been a catalyst for change, forcing a national conversation about the safety of religious institutions, the consistency of hate-crime legislation, and the urgent need for political leadership that acts decisively, rather than merely speaking against antisemitism. The memory of 5th October 2025 is now a sombre, permanent fixture, a constant reminder of the vigilance required to protect Britain’s oldest minority community.