Burnham Signals Tougher Policy on Israel Over Gaza

The decision by incoming Labour leader Andy Burnham to pivot on Israel’s military actions in Gaza is a calculated risk that could either revitalize the party or drive it further into disarray. His video apology for Labour’s initial response to the conflict has been met with applause from many on the left, who see it as a long-overdue acknowledgment of the party’s shortcomings.

However, others are more skeptical, warning that his new stance could alienate pro-Israel voters and exacerbate internal divisions within the party. The context is crucial here: Labour’s struggles to balance its support for Palestinian rights with concerns about antisemitism have been well-documented. The party’s failure to take a clear stance on Gaza has cost it dearly in opinion polls, particularly among Muslim voters who feel their voices are not being heard.

Burnham’s move signals a break from the Starmer government’s more equivocal approach. By acknowledging Labour’s failings and pledging to do better, Burnham is attempting to rebrand the party as a champion of Palestinian rights while reassuring Jewish voters that he will take antisemitism seriously.

This raises questions about the broader policy agenda: Will Burnham’s tougher stance on Israel be matched by corresponding changes to defence and economic policy? The answer is far from clear. However, one thing is certain: the incoming leader will need all his skills of diplomacy and persuasion to navigate the treacherous waters of Middle East politics.

The wider implications are also worth considering. If Labour is able to successfully pivot on Israel, it could potentially open up new avenues for cooperation with other parties, including the Greens, who have been vocal in their criticism of Israel’s actions. This would require a fundamental shift in Labour’s approach to foreign policy, one that prioritizes human rights and international law over traditional alliances.

Labour’s struggles with Middle East policy are not new. The party has long been associated with a strong pro-Palestinian stance, dating back to the 1970s when Jeremy Corbyn was first elected as an MP. However, this position has often been at odds with Labour’s traditional ties to Israel and the Jewish community.

The legacy of the Iraq War looms large in all this. The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 has been widely criticized as a catastrophic error that destabilized the region and created opportunities for extremist groups like ISIS. Labour’s failure to learn from this mistake and adapt its foreign policy accordingly has contributed to its current woes.

Burnham’s new stance on Israel is a high-stakes game of political poker. Will he succeed in winning back voters who abandoned the party over its position on Israel? Or will his new stance prove too little, too late? The answer lies in Burnham’s ability to balance competing demands within the party. He must reassure Jewish voters that he takes antisemitism seriously while also catering to the growing number of Labour MPs who want a tougher stance on Israel.

The looming presence of Donald Trump and his administration’s aggressive posture towards Iran adds another layer of complexity. Burnham has signaled that he will continue Sir Keir’s policy of non-intervention, but this may not be enough to satisfy those within the party who want a more assertive approach.

As Labour navigates this treacherous landscape, it would do well to remember the words of Tony Benn: “Foreign policy is not just about foreign affairs; it’s about domestic politics too.” Burnham’s Gaza gambit is a test of Labour’s true colours. Will he succeed in winning back voters and rebranding the party as a champion of Palestinian rights? Or will his new stance prove too little, too late? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: Labour’s future hangs precariously in the balance.