A croissant and a shawarma can be sold on the same street without anyone losing their freedom. Trouble begins when people on that street can no longer safely criticise a religious idea, identify themselves as Jewish, or challenge extremists. The headline is satirical, but the question beneath it is serious. Is Europe still prepared to defend the liberty it built, or is it learning to live within boundaries drawn by fear?
In my view, Europe’s greatest danger is becoming accustomed to surrender. Conquest can begin long before flags change. Violent groups need only acquire influence over what may be said, who requires protection, and which ideas are better left unspoken. When political leaders accept such conditions as permanent, they hand extremists a political victory without the inconvenience of an election.
Extremist Islamism seeks to impose a political and social order in the name of a religious interpretation, sometimes through incitement and terrorism. Muslims who obey the law and respect the freedom of others are not automatically participants in that project. Many are its victims. A state that cannot distinguish a Muslim citizen from an extremist Islamist activist will fail both to protect the public and to uphold equality before the law.
In England, the statement issued by Britain’s Security Service on 1 May 2026 was far sharper than some of the reassuring public commentary. The national terrorism threat level was raised to Severe, meaning an attack was highly likely. The service identified Islamist terrorism as the principal threat, alongside a rising threat from the extreme right. It also highlighted heightened threats to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions. These were the findings of Britain’s own security agency.
England’s task extends beyond foiling the next attack. Its leaders must confront the civilian cost of a persistent threat. Security measures save lives, but a society should never grow comfortable with the idea that being visibly Jewish demands special precautions. A government that merely manages danger, without making clear that religious intimidation will buy no public influence, leaves extremists dangerous room to manoeuvre.
Italy shows why the debate cannot stop at borders and immigration. In March 2025, a man was arrested in the Brescia area on suspicion of training for terrorist purposes. The investigation reportedly concerned activity in groups linked to Daesh, possession of jihadist propaganda, and searches for instructions to manufacture improvised weapons. These were allegations, not a conviction. The investigation nevertheless illustrates how extremist activity can develop within an ordinary residential setting and draw support from the internet.
In Spain, the Interior Ministry reported that the National Police alone made 66 arrests connected with jihadist terrorism in 2025. That figure does not cover all the country’s security agencies. In February 2026, the police announced another arrest in Madrid on suspicion of membership of a terrorist group, glorification of terrorism, and terrorist indoctrination, following an investigation into the consumption of Daesh and al Qaeda propaganda. Such arrests demonstrate essential enforcement. They also puncture the comforting fiction that the threat has remained outside Europe.
In the Netherlands, the intelligence service AIVD’s report for 2025 identified jihadism as the principal source of the terrorist threat. Young people up to the age of 24 accounted for a third of those under investigation for jihadism. This is a finding about people under investigation, not about young Muslims generally. The report described the availability of extremist material and the role of social media in spreading it. A modern, educated society is no guarantee against recruitment into a violent ideology.
In Scandinavia, prosperity and strong public institutions are no substitute for vigilance. Sweden’s threat assessment for 2026 identified lone Islamist extremists and violent extremists from the right as major sources of danger. The security service also reported that an attack motivated by Islamist extremism had been foiled during 2025. In May that year, Sweden lowered its threat level from four to three. That success deserves recognition and shows that action can make a difference. It does not mean the threat has disappeared.
In Denmark, the security service’s assessment of May 2026 retained the terrorism threat at the fourth of five levels and also classified the threat from militant Islamists as significant. Norway’s PST assessment for 2026 placed Islamist extremism among the gravest threats of political violence and emphasised radicalisation online. The Norwegian report made clear that support for extremists within the country was limited. Precisely for that reason, a violent minority must never be allowed influence so disproportionate to its numbers.
Ireland cannot rely on the hope that danger will stop at the sea. In a report published in April 2026, the Independent Examiner of Security Legislation, George Birmingham, identified Islamist terrorism as a significant concern. He addressed the possibility of attacks within Ireland and of attacks on a neighbouring country being planned or launched from Irish territory. This was an unambiguous institutional warning. Feeling distant from the main theatres of conflict is no security policy.
These countries face different circumstances. Threat assessments do not establish that the whole of Europe has been conquered. They reveal a genuine challenge and institutions that are still fighting it. In my judgement, the danger of surrender begins when successful disruption is treated as a complete answer and the effect of intimidation on civilian life is neglected. Preventing an attack is an indispensable achievement. It does not discharge a government’s responsibility to protect the right to live and speak without fear.
The clearest test is how a state treats the citizens whom extremists seek to intimidate. A Jewish person must be free to pray and identify publicly as Jewish. A Muslim woman must be free to choose how she lives. Someone who has left a religion must be free to say so. When the state protects these rights only after a threat, it is already operating on terms set by the intimidator. Sovereignty requires protecting those freedoms in advance and punishing those who violate them.
Fierce criticism of Israel is part of freedom of expression. Threats against Jews and the glorification of terrorist organisations require a response under the law. Responsible leaders must uphold that distinction even when it is politically inconvenient. Every attempt to justify harming a civilian because of a war in another country gives violence a new target. Agreement on the Middle East is not a prerequisite for recognising that a Jewish person in London or Amsterdam is entitled to full protection.
The immigration debate also demands honesty. Immigration itself is not terrorism, and religious identity is not evidence of an offence. The state nevertheless has a duty to assess risks, enforce residency conditions, and prosecute inciters and financiers of terrorism on the basis of evidence. The rule must apply equally. Freedom of religion gives nobody the authority to impose belief on another person. Successful integration requires acceptance of the law of the land, including the freedom to debate religion itself.
For Indian readers, this debate touches a familiar question of sovereignty within a diverse society. India should learn from Europe’s warnings without copying its weaknesses or abandoning equal protection for every citizen. A state is not required to choose between tolerance and resolve against terrorism. It must uphold both. Europe has no monopoly on democratic morality, and lectures from abroad cannot replace independent security judgement.
This is only the beginning if radicalisation online continues to spread faster than the capacity to confront it. A young person need not cross a border to encounter jihadist propaganda. Tackling inciters, recruitment networks, and financing is therefore part of defending sovereignty itself. Responsibility cannot rest with the security services alone. It also belongs to leaders willing to explain why their citizens’ freedom depends on consistent enforcement.
The years that have been lost cannot be recovered. For those who were murdered, it is already too late. Public trust, once eroded, does not return at the end of a forceful speech. I reject the assurance that everything neglected can simply be restored. As fear becomes habitual, the cost of repair rises. Europe can still act, but it must stop treating liberty as an inheritance that cannot be lost.
To my mind, the old Europe, which believed that good intentions would protect it from the enemies of liberty, has reached the end of its road. What replaces it depends on restoring the authority of the law without abandoning the equality that the law exists to secure. The croissant may yet remain in the shop window. The real test is whether the person standing before it can speak freely, without fearing whoever might be listening.