Crack down on Islamic radicalism or watch it spread
GAVIN S INNES
PRO-Palestine marches still pack UK streets. Students have confidently ignored Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s verbal plea to skip them as ‘un-British’.
By contrast, US President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan unveiled last month stands as conservative realism in action. It demands Gaza’s deradicalisation, Hamas’s military destruction, and the remaking of the territory as a safe Palestinian haven free from threats to Israel. The deal requires all Israeli hostages to be freed within 72 hours of agreement, exchanged for Israel’s release of 250 Palestinian prisoners, with governance handed to skilled technocrats over militants.
Trump’s plan is blunt: erase Hamas from Gaza’s future, backed by thorough deradicalisation to prevent repeats. Far from empty talk, it builds on the success of the Abraham Accords success in fostering Arab-Israeli ties via economic lures. Even Pakistan’s Prime Minister has offered guarded backing, seeing its potential to break violence’s grip — though his foreign minister later objected to alterations diverging from Muslim nations’ proposals. In a war that killed more than 1,200 Israelis on a single day and leaves hostages in agony, such firmness promises real stability. Gaza residents’ testimonies of desperation underscore the urgency, as highlighted in recent BBC discussions demanding bold action.
Europe’s — and Britain’s — efforts look feeble beside this. Starmer calls for hostage returns and more Gaza aid, but his words ring hollow amid marches that quietly lionise Hamas allies.
While Starmer nods to the ‘US initiative’ as a path to peace — pushing for ceasefires and a two-state solution — he stops short of demanding Hamas’s full dismantlement. This echoes the 1930s appeasement of British leaders such as Neville Chamberlain, who made concessions to Hitler in hopes of averting war.
The infamous 1938 Munich Agreement handed over Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland for ‘peace in our time’ only to embolden Nazi aggression and delay the inevitable carnage of the Second World War.
Starmer’s hesitance risks the same: projecting weakness to radicals, sustaining threats he claims to fight. His plea to students lands with a thud: protest organisers forge ahead undeterred, a damning reflection of his fading authority and the public’s mounting disenchantment.
Polls paint a grim picture: net approval at a dismal -44 per cent, with gross favourability scraping below 30 per cent, and zero traction among activists oblivious to the conflict’s nuances.
These utterances amount to nothing more than glossy platitudes — vapid, feel-good drivel that veils utter inertia, hoodwinking only his echo-chamber handlers. Such spineless posturing against brazen attacks on British society and its citizens exposes a core deficit in character and leadership mettle, rendering him unfit for a premiership that commands respect through unflinching, proactive decrees putting Brits first — not this limp-wristed surrender to the ‘pro Palestinian’ mob.
On BBC Radio 4’s Today, Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis warned of protests breeding ‘outright anti-Semitism, outright support for Hamas’, adding: ‘You cannot separate the words on our streets . . . and what inevitably results, which was [Thursday’s] terrorist attack.’
Reform UK’s Nigel Farage blasts marchers for cheering last week’s Manchester synagogue assault, saying anti-Semitism has ‘infected the institutions of our country’.
This mirrors Trump’s tough line — confronting extremism head-on, not with soft words —and lays bare Labour’s dodge of linking home-grown hate to imported Islamism.
Community Security Trust’s Dave Rich agreed on air, noting how such rallies drain Jewish defences to pander to a banned terror group.
These lapses stem from domestic blind spots, where lax immigration imports Islamist strains, spiking anti-Semitism.
Since October 7, British Jews report plummeting safety. Last week’s Manchester horror—Jihad Al-Shamie, bailed on rape charges, ramming and stabbing Yom Kippur worshippers — exposes the heightened risk. Locals had flagged the attacker’s family’s extremism, but nothing followed.
This stems from directives tying police hands to dodge ‘racism’ claims, per the Macpherson Report’s legacy. The 2025 Policy Exchange analyses on policing disparities argue this breeds undue caution with non-Western suspects, letting threats like Al-Shamie fester. Tougher borders — stricter checks, swift deportations for high-risk origins — could help to avert such tragedies.
Starmer ally Sir Sadiq Khan embodies this conscious bias. Soft on Islamist-linked issues, he hammers white British-led protests while dodging scrutiny himself. When grilled on oversight committees or on Question Time, Khan shuns solid answers, welcoming audience disruptions to cut his reply time short.
He parrots cringe-worthy scripts, deflects with evasion, and fires back petty personal attacks at questioners. Khan decried Tommy Robinson’s September Unite the Kingdom rally as ‘far-right racism hijacking our flag’, linking it to global strife. The event drew hundreds of thousands of people and there were just 24 arrests, some of them hard left counter demonstrators. Yet Khan backs the Notting Hill Carnival, which saw 528 arrests for drugs, weapons, and brawls in a less-charged setting. Why the calm at an anti-extremism throng, chaos at the fest? Khan brands white critics of grooming as ‘far-right’ but excuses the rest.
This invites probe of biases. Rotherham’s grooming gangs — predominantly British-Pakistani, per Quilliam’s 2017 study — prey via patriarchal norms from rural Pakistan, viewing non-Muslim girls as fair game. The 2025 Casey Review criticised the institutional failings of the authorities for permitting this scandal.
Al-Shamie’s Syrian jihadist links invited a similar sort of response from the authorities: he was a recluse from an extremist family overlooked in spite of warnings, his supremacist views devaluing Jewish lives. This poisonous blend — patriarchy, ethnic superiority, honour codes — fed on unintegrated misogyny and anti-Western hatred, met with little pushback from some ‘white’ elites who choose silent virtue-signalling over bold action.
Khan’s allies excuse in-group lapses — scarcely challenged unless blatant, otherwise cloaked in diversity jargon — fuelling public outrage at the absence of honest solutions, such as bolstered Prevent programmes or mandatory integration, long overdue. Trump’s model shows the way: tackle radicalism hard, or watch it spread.
Trump’s and Farage’s raw candour towers over the rehearsed guff of their rivals because they always put people first.
Trump’s blueprint recognises that peace-making demands defying evil, and not cosying up to it.
Britain should follow the example of the American president. We should close our borders to hate-peddlers, shield British citizens from their extremism, and find the honesty to recognise the repeated marches that mock the slain and sow seeds of further violence for precisely what they are.
This article (Crack down on Islamic radicalism or watch it spread) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Gavin S Innes
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply