Two worshippers murdered. Three more injured. A sacred Yom Kippur morning desecrated by a car ramming and stabbing attack at a Manchester synagogue.
Yet once again, somewhat predictably, Britain’s political class responds with words: platitudes, photo-ops, and promises of “stepped-up policing.”
But words alone cannot shield a community under siege. Britain’s Jews are being abandoned — not because of police incompetence, but because successive governments have actively appeased the Islamist anti-Semitism that now stalks their streets.
The Cost of Appeasement
The Manchester attack did not occur in isolation. It fits a pattern of Islamist-inspired violence that has been rising for years. In 2022, an extremist attempted to burn down a synagogue in Leeds. In 2023, a machete-wielding attacker targeted a kosher shop in Stamford Hill. Car convoys drove through London’s Jewish districts, chanting threats inspired by Hamas. Each incident exposed a stark reality: British authorities are hesitant to confront Islamist extremism directly.
Why? Because naming the enemy risks offending “community leaders,” or being accused of stigmatising entire faith groups. The result is appeasement in its purest form: a state that refuses to act decisively against those who target Jews for murder and intimidation. Instead, officials offer sympathetic words, temporary patrols, and reassurance — all while leaving the root threat untouched.
This is no longer a matter of policing tactics. It is a political choice: to prioritise public relations over protection, to value the appearance of tolerance over the substance of security.
Words Offer No Protection
Sadiq Khan promises “stepped-up policing” around London synagogues. Keir Starmer pledges “everything” will be done. The ritual is familiar: Cobra meetings, press statements, uniformed officers at synagogue doors. These gestures provide short-term reassurance but do absolutely nothing to disrupt the ideological networks that perpetuate anti-Jewish hatred.
Meanwhile, Jewish families are left to fund their own security. The Community Security Trust (CST) raises millions annually to hire guards, install cameras, and patrol schools. Volunteers risk their lives to watch over children and worshippers while politicians speak. The clear message is that Jews are citizens in theory, not in practice. Their protection is conditional — contingent on their own resources and resilience.
This appeasement has consequences. Each act of Islamist aggression that goes unchecked emboldens the next. Threats escalate into violence. Synagogues, schools, and kosher shops become targets because perpetrators understand that the state will prioritise political correctness over enforcement. The result is a community forced to live behind fences, with metal detectors, under permanent surveillance — while those who incite hatred operate with impunity.
It is no exaggeration to say that Britain tolerates anti-Semitism from Islamists today in a way it would never tolerate violence from other extremists. Far-Right conspiracies provoke outrage and swift prosecution. Far-Left attacks are sometimes excused under the guise of political debate. Islamist-inspired attacks, however, are too often met with muted response and euphemistic language. This is appeasement in action: a tacit allowance of intimidation, a national shrug in the face of threat.
This latest attack exposes the moral failure at the heart of Britain’s response. To protect a minority adequately, the state must confront all ideologies that target them. That means dismantling extremist networks, prosecuting those who incite violence, and rejecting the notion that certain communities are “sensitive” or off-limits to criticism.
Instead, politicians speak in careful tones. They pledge “solidarity” while avoiding the words that might alienate voters or activists. In the process, they signal that the safety of Jews is negotiable. They allow fear of offending to outweigh the imperative to protect.
Lessons Ignored
History offers grim lessons. Appeasement has consequences. The British government’s reluctance to confront extremist ideology today echoes past failures: letting threats fester until tragedy occurs. Today, those lessons are not heeded; they are repeated in microcosm every time a synagogue is threatened and the response is limited to temporary police presence.
Jewish communities should not be forced into a permanent defensive posture, their daily lives dictated by what extremists might do next. Yet that is the reality in Britain: from Manchester to Leeds, from London to Stamford Hill, fear is the constant companion of worship.
The Manchester attack must force a reckoning. Britain’s leaders must choose between continued appeasement and decisive action. This means:
Naming and confronting Islamist extremists who propagate hatred against Jews, without fear of accusations of discrimination.
Enforcing hate crime laws rigorously, with visible and consistent consequences for perpetrators.
Funding and empowering Jewish community security in partnership with law enforcement, rather than leaving it as a stop-gap measure.
Anything less is a tacit acceptance that Jews will live under siege, their faith practiced only behind fences, gates, and armed guards.
Britain’s Jews, Europe’s Jews, Deserve Better
Tolerance is meaningless without protection. Britain’s Jews are not asking for special treatment. They demand the basic right that any citizen should expect: to walk to synagogue on the holiest day of their year without being threatened or attacked.
The state’s failure to confront Islamist anti-Semitism, and its preference for appeasement over action, is a betrayal of that right. If Britain cannot defend its Jewish citizens, then the claim to be a civilised, tolerant society is empty.
Manchester is a warning. The question now is whether Britain will act decisively — or continue the charade of polite words, temporary patrols, and moral cowardice. So far, history offers little hope.
Three in Court over Alleged Islamist Terror Attack on British Jewish Community
