It's hard to believe, but America is considering asylum for British Jews.

What should be unthinkable is now being discussed openly — and seriously.

The Bevis Marks Synagogue, built in 1701 in London (photo: World Jewish Travel)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

This is a guest essay by Mitch Schneider, who writes about Israel, from Israel.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

“US considering asylum for British Jews” — that’s an actual headline The Telegraph ran this week.

Britain. Asylum. For Jews. In 2026.

I had to read it twice to make sure it wasn’t satire on steroids.

But it’s real. U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Robert Garson, just told The Telegraph that the UK is “no longer a safe place for Jews”¹ and he’s been discussing with the U.S. State Department about bringing British Jews to America as asylum seekers.

Garson isn’t some American political operative making noise. He was born in Manchester. He’s a criminal defense barrister who practiced in UK courts for years. He knows British law cold. When he looks at his home country and sees no future for Jews there, that’s not rhetoric; that’s a professional diagnosis.

Here’s what he saw.

October 2, 2025 — Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Jews in Manchester gathered at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue for services the same way they had for decades. Around 9:30 in the morning, a man named Jihad al-Shamie drove his car into pedestrians outside the synagogue, jumped out with a knife, and started stabbing people while shouting “They are killing our kids!” He wore what looked like a suicide vest.

Rabbi Daniel Walker, leader of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue, had received a death threat months earlier. Someone told him: “Get out of Manchester, they don’t like your type around here, you support genocide.” Now someone was trying to make good on that threat. On that Yom Kippur morning, the rabbi locked the synagogue doors mid-attack and kept the terrorist from entering while moving his congregation to safety inside.

Two Jews died that morning: Melvin Cravitz, 66, was killed by the attacker, and Adrian Daulby, 53, was accidentally shot by police trying to stop the massacre. Britain’s Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis called it “the day we hoped we would never see, but which deep down, we knew would come.”² The spiritual leader of British Jewry watched antisemitism rise for years and feared this day was inevitable. That’s the reality British Jews have been living with while Starmer has been issuing statements about how seriously he takes antisemitism.

Robert Garson’s assessment is damning because Britain isn’t some failed state without legal tools to prosecute people who glorify terrorism and incite violence against Jews. Britain has some of the strongest terrorism legislation in the democratic world, like “Terrorism Act 2006, Section 1,” which makes it an offence to encourage terrorism, including glorifying terrorist acts. If someone makes a public statement glorifying attacks like October 7th in circumstances where members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that such conduct should be emulated, that’s a crime. The maximum sentence is 15 years imprisonment.

“Terrorism Act 2000, Section 12” makes it an offence to express support for a proscribed organization, if you’re reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support them. Hamas has been proscribed as a terrorist organization in the UK since 2001. The maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment. Then there’s “Public Order Act 1986, Section 18,” which makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior with intent to stir up racial hatred. The maximum sentence is seven years imprisonment.

So when people stood on the streets of London after October 7th glorifying what Hamas did to Israeli women and children, when they waved Hamas flags and chanted Hamas slogans, British law was crystal clear about what should happen: Prosecute them. Britain made over 600 arrests at protests since October 7th.

Now here’s my question for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer: How many of those 600 arrests led to prosecutions under these terrorism laws? How many people have actually faced the 15-year sentence that British law provides for glorifying terrorism? How many have faced 14 years for supporting Hamas? The number is likely close to, if not, zero.

Robert Garson, who spent his career as a criminal defense barrister in Britain, knows exactly what that means: The Crown Prosecution Service “failed to uphold the law in its refusal to bring charges against protesters on the streets of Britain who had glorified in the rape or death of Jews”³ after October 7th.

Six hundred arrests. Thousands of people standing on British streets glorifying the rape and murder of Jews. Your prosecutors had Section 1 of the “Terrorism Act 2006” available. They could have sought 15-year sentences; they chose not to charge them.

When you arrest someone for glorifying terrorism and then decline to prosecute them under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, you’re sending two messages. The first message goes to the person you arrested: “We’re not serious. Do it again.” The second message goes to everyone watching: “The law doesn’t really apply here. We’ll arrest you for show, but we won’t actually charge you with the felony you committed.”

That’s exactly what happened in Britain since October 7th.

Garson says there’s been “a lack of political will” to actually enforce these laws when Jews are the targets. That’s a professional way of saying they purposefully chose not to protect British Jews even when they had every possible legal tool to do so.

Meanwhile, the Community Security Trust has tracked antisemitic incidents in Britain since 1984. In 2023, they recorded 4,103 incidents. That’s the worst year in four decades of record-keeping, and two-thirds of those incidents happened after October 7th. In London alone, antisemitic hate crimes jumped 1,353 percent in the weeks after the Hamas attack.

When researchers surveyed British Jews, 82 percent said antisemitism is a major problem in their country. Half have considered leaving. After the Manchester attack, CNN spoke to Jews there and reported that people were “increasingly talking about moving to Israel, as they no longer felt safe in the UK.”⁴

Jewish schools in Britain have alarm systems, but they don’t work like alarms in other schools. Most schools have alarms that tell students to evacuate during emergencies. Jewish schools have alarms that tell students to stay inside and hide under tables — because the threat isn’t inside the building, it’s outside trying to get in. This is what Britain has become for Jews under the British government.

Garson places the blame directly on Keir Starmer who, according to Garson, “has turned a total blind eye to antisemitism. The Prime Minister has allowed rampant antisemitism to become commonplace in society and has allowed it to come from those who really don’t have Britain’s best interests at heart.”

There was a time when British Jews felt safe. Britain wasn’t perfect, but Jews could participate in their religion and culture and community openly, send their children to Jewish schools, and walk to synagogue on Shabbat without armed guards.

Now? The Chief Rabbi fears massacres are inevitable, and 82 percent of Jews say antisemitism is a major problem. Half are considering leaving. Children train to hide under desks when alarms sound.

Want to prove Robert Garson wrong? Want to show British Jews they have a future in Britain? It’s simple: Enforce Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. Britain doesn’t need new legislation. It doesn’t need to wait for reports or committees or task forces. It doesn’t need to study the problem. They have the law. They have the evidence. They have thousands of hours of video from protests showing people doing exactly what Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 was designed to prohibit.

All they need is the political will to actually use it.

British Jews are watching for one thing: Are you serious, or are you performing? Do the laws on the books mean anything, or are they just documented words? Will they enforce Section 1 when someone glorifies murdering Jews, or will they make another arrest that leads nowhere?

Right now, based on your record of 600 arrests and zero terrorism prosecutions, they’re reaching the obvious conclusion. One prosecution under Section 1 changes that calculation. One case that goes all the way through. One person facing 15 years for glorifying terrorism shows that British law isn’t bad theater.

If they don’t act, British Jews have options. But before we get to that, let me say something to Jews in Canada, Australia, France, and the United States who are reading this and thinking, “At least it’s not as bad here.” Here it is: Britain isn’t unique, Britain is the warning.

Canada saw massive protests glorifying Hamas. Australia did too. France has had Jews fleeing for years. America saw antisemitic incidents spike 361 percent after October 7th. The pattern repeats everywhere: protests where glorifying terrorists faces no consequences, enforcement failures, and political leaders who condemn attacks but won’t prosecute the people who incite them.

What’s happening in Britain shows what happens when a Western democracy decides that protecting Jews isn’t worth the political cost of actually enforcing the law. It’s what happens when prosecutors look at people glorifying the rape and murder of Jews and decide that charging them would be too controversial. It’s what happens when a prime minister watches antisemitism become commonplace and turns a blind eye because confronting it would cost “too much” political capital.

Britain had nearly 300,000 Jews. It was an established, centuries-old community in a stable Western democracy. And in one generation it became a place where the Chief Rabbi feared a massacre was inevitable, where half of Jews are considering leaving, where the government won’t prosecute people who stand on the streets of London glorifying the murder of Jews.

If it happened there, it can happen anywhere. The only question is whether Jews in other countries are paying attention to the warning signs.

American asylum is generous, but it’s still diaspora. It’s still being guests in someone else’s country. It’s still depending on prosecutors choosing to enforce laws and politicians choosing to protect Jews. We’ve lived that story for 2,000 years; we know how it ends.

Israel isn’t another country offering us refuge. Israel is coming home. We returned to our ancestral homeland and re-established our state so Jewish children would never again grow up wondering if they’d have to flee, so there would be one place on earth where being Jewish doesn’t make Jews a guest hoping prosecutors will choose to enforce the law when Jews are threatened.

When British Jews talk about leaving these days, they’re not looking for American asylum. They’re recognizing what every Jew eventually recognizes: There’s one place we don’t have to ask permission to exist, one place that’s ours because it always has been — even through 2,000 years of exile.

And yet, why are we still having this conversation? Robert Garson sees that Britain failed its Jews and wants to help. We ought to appreciate that. Donald Trump’s administration is paying attention when the UK government is not, and we ought to appreciate that too.

But British Jews don’t need American asylum. They need Britain to enforce the laws it already has. Or they’ll do what Jews do when a country demonstrates it won’t protect them: They’ll come home to Israel.

---

1. “US considering asylum for British Jews.” The Telegraph.

2. “Attack ‘sadly something we feared was coming’, Jewish leaders say.” Sky News.

3. “Trump lawyer floats asylum for British Jews.” JNS.

4. “Police admit they shot dead Manchester synagogue victim, as attack puts spotlight on antisemitism in UK.” CNN.