Former Margaret Thatcher Speechwriter Chimes in on Geopolitics Dynamic
The interview between former Margaret Thatcher speechwriter Geoff Gilson and OANN’s Riley Lewis focused on the far-reaching implications of the terror attack that struck a synagogue in Manchester on the eve of Yom Kippur, coinciding with the two-year anniversary of Hamas’s October 7 assault on Israel. Gilson, who has long studied the intersection of British politics, radical Islamism, and Western complacency toward extremism, offered a sobering analysis of what he called the “gathering storm” in Europe and the West more broadly.
The attack in Manchester, which left several dead and many wounded, was more than an isolated act of violence. Gilson framed it as a symptom of a deeper, festering crisis — the normalization of anti-Semitism under the guise of political activism and cultural sensitivity. In his view, the United Kingdom’s failure to draw a moral distinction between legitimate political protest and outright hatred has invited the very kind of domestic terrorism that once seemed unthinkable in British cities. The fact that it occurred at a synagogue, during Yom Kippur, and on the anniversary of Hamas’s bloodiest assault, made the symbolism unmistakable. It was, Gilson said, an assault not just on Jewish worshippers, but on Western civilization’s moral compass.
He emphasized that this was not the first warning sign. Britain’s streets have, for years, hosted protests in which extremist slogans were shouted openly while police stood by, bound by political restraint or fear of cultural backlash. Gilson traced this moral erosion back to the British political class’s long-standing policy of appeasement—one that began as a desire for inclusivity and multicultural harmony but has metastasized into fear-driven paralysis. He likened the modern British government’s reluctance to confront radical elements within its borders to the appeasement policies of the 1930s, when early warnings about fascism were dismissed as alarmism.
In this case, Gilson argued, the ideological appeasement has been cloaked in progressive rhetoric. Universities, media outlets, and even Parliament have become, in his view, “safe spaces” for ideas that demonize Israel, excuse Hamas, and vilify Western responses as imperial aggression. What once was fringe rhetoric has now entered the mainstream, particularly following the October 7 attacks, when widespread sympathy for Hamas among certain activist circles revealed how far public discourse had drifted from moral clarity.
Gilson Knows about Confusion
Lewis asked whether this cultural shift is reversible. Gilson was cautious, saying that the erosion of moral conviction has been gradual but steady, and rebuilding it would require political courage that is currently in short supply. He pointed out that both the Conservative and Labour parties have been hesitant to condemn radical Islamist groups outright, often fearing the political consequences among certain constituencies. He added that even within the broader Western alliance, there is a growing discomfort in acknowledging that the struggle against terrorism is not just a military or security issue—it is a civilizational one.
Turning to the U.S., Gilson drew parallels between Britain’s cultural malaise and similar patterns emerging in America. He warned that the same political timidity that allowed extremist ideology to take root in Britain is now appearing across American institutions. The reluctance to defend Western values without qualification, he said, has created a vacuum that bad actors—from radical Islamists to authoritarian regimes—are eager to fill. The Manchester attack, in that light, was not merely a British tragedy but a global wake-up call.
Gilson also reflected on the symbolic significance of timing. The fact that the synagogue attack occurred on the eve of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, and on the anniversary of Hamas’s massacre, could not be ignored. It was, he said, a deliberate statement by those who wish to erase the presence of Jews from public life and intimidate democratic societies into silence. That such violence can now occur in one of Europe’s most historically tolerant nations underscores the scale of the problem.
He further warned against the temptation to view the incident solely through a security lens. While policing, intelligence, and border control are crucial, the heart of the problem lies in what he called “moral disarmament”—a condition in which Western nations no longer believe in their own values strongly enough to defend them. Without cultural confidence, no amount of counterterrorism funding can ensure safety, because the moral framework that underpins deterrence is itself eroding.
Lewis concluded the interview by asking what lessons Britain and its allies should take from the tragedy. Gilson responded that the first step is acknowledging the reality of the threat, free from political correctness or the fear of offense. The Manchester synagogue attack, like the October 7 massacre, was not random—it was ideological, purposeful, and symbolic. Until Western leaders recover the moral clarity to name evil as such, he said, they will continue to be surprised by the consequences of their own denial. The choice, he implied, is no longer between confrontation and peace, but between clarity and collapse.
