Acts of Terror

There’s a beautiful Hebrew proverb: Oreach Le’Rega Roe Kol Pega – a guest may spot all flaws. Lately, as a visiting scholar in the UK, I’ve had the privilege of engaging with a wide range of Jews: Haredi, Reform, Traditional, Modern Orthodox, Gerim (converts), and secular. I’ve spoken with women in suits, fully tattooed men; Labour and Conservative supporters alike. Our conversations often circled around the same themes: antisemitism, Israel, and, of course, the weather.

But one conversation stands out and still resonates in my mind. A prominent Jewish doctor asked me, “You are a visitor in this country. What do you see? Should I be alarmed?” Before I could answer, he added, “In any case, I’m starting to learn Hebrew.”

What do I see? Beyond the obvious topics discussed, there is something troubling beneath the surface—something that has received surprisingly little attention. I’m referring to the coordinated attacks on 20 Barclays Bank branches across England and Scotland by Palestine Action. These attacks were carried out to demand that the bank divest from Israel’s weapons trade and fossil fuels.

The attacks followed calls to boycott Barclays for allegedly being “financially complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza.” Despite the severity of these incidents, months later, the attackers remain un-apprehended. When I asked a prominent lawyer about this lukewarm reaction, he shrugged it off: “This country is used to vandalism. A few broken windows and some graffiti are not a big deal.”

But is that really the case? Is this just vandalism—or something far more sinister?

Vandalism is typically the destruction of property. But in this case, the damage was a means to an end. The attacks on Barclays were neither spontaneous nor random—they were carefully orchestrated acts of intimidation. The smashing of windows, the red spray paint evoking blood, all sent a clear message: “If you do not boycott Israel, expect violence.”

Under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, an action designed to intimidate a section of the public for a political, religious, or ideological cause can be classified as terrorism. The attacks on Barclays fit this definition. The choice of red spray paint and the coordinated, nationwide destruction of property were intended to send a warning to Barclays employees and directors: comply with our demands or face the consequences.

Unfortunately, this message seems to have been partially received. In a letter to The Guardian (June 14, 2024), Barclays Group Chief Executive CS Venkatakrishnan described the fear that gripped the bank’s employees. And while Barclays initially planned to cancel an Israeli bond sale under activist pressure, they later rescinded that decision (Financial Times, August 14, 2024).

So, what would my answer be to the physician who asked if he should be alarmed? Yes, he should be. Although antisemitism is an ancient, recurring phenomenon, with an evolving form, history teaches us two critical lessons: first, we must recognize the warning signs before violent antisemitism arises, and the vandalism at Barclays is one such sign. Second, the fight-or-flight response is an adaptive necessary mechanism in emergencies.

What should be done, then? It is essential that attacks on British banks, even small-scale acts of hate, not go unchallenged. These incidents should be treated as a national issue and classified as acts of terror. Left unchecked, they could escalate into even more severe violence. The police must enforce the message: “We will not tolerate hate crimes.” And if the situation continues to deteriorate, there’s always the flight option—Israel is in need of more doctors.