Key Takeaways
- Andy Burnham apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s war on Gaza, calling it a failure and pledging to increase pressure on the Israeli government if he becomes prime minister.
- Polls show half of the British public believes Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and many former Labour voters have defected to the Greens over the party’s stance on Palestine.
- Under Keir Starmer, Labour supported Israel’s right to self‑defence, was slow to call for a ceasefire, maintained arms sales to Israel, and proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
- Burnham’s remarks are seen by analysts as largely symbolic; while they may placate disaffected voters, substantive policy change faces constraints from historic UK‑Israel ties, US relations, and legal considerations.
- The UK has licensed hundreds of millions of pounds of military equipment to Israel, including components for F‑35 jets, and only a partial suspension of arms exports has been implemented despite ceasefire calls.
- Analysts warn that without concrete actions—such as a full arms embargo or recognition of Palestinian statehood—Burnham’s statements risk remaining political rhetoric rather than a shift in foreign policy.
Andy Burnham’s Apology and Policy Pledge
Andy Burnham, the Labour MP widely regarded as the party’s next leader and prospective prime minister, released a video message in which he apologised for Labour’s handling of the Israel‑Gaza conflict. He acknowledged that the party “didn’t get it right” at the outset of Israel’s military action and said the UK was “too slow to call for a ceasefire.” Burnham expressed regret over the “unbearable suffering” in Gaza, describing it as a “scar on our collective conscience,” and promised to increase pressure on the Israeli government to halt its assaults and expand humanitarian aid. While he stopped short of labeling Israel’s actions as genocidal, his tone signalled a clear shift toward greater sympathy for Palestinian civilians and a commitment to revitalising the two‑state solution.
Public Sentiment and Electoral Pressure
Recent polling underscores growing domestic unease with the UK’s Gaza policy. A YouGov survey commissioned by the Council for Arab‑British Understanding found that 50 % of Britons believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, while only 17 % disagree and one‑third remain uncertain. The data reveal a significant drift of Labour’s traditional base: a Palestinian Solidarity Campaign poll indicated that two‑thirds of Labour voters who have switched to the Green Party did so because of the party’s position on Gaza. Analysts such as Patrick Diamond note that Burnham’s apology is aimed at placating these disaffected voters, whose defection has inflicted measurable electoral damage on Labour, especially among British Muslims and left‑liberal constituencies.
Labour’s Historical Position on Gaza
Under former leader Keir Starmer, Labour’s initial reaction to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks was to affirm Israel’s right to self‑defence, a stance that many critics viewed as overly cautious as the war progressed. Starmer’s early comments—suggesting Israel could withhold power and water from Palestinians while still adhering to international law—provoked fury within the party and required a delayed clarification. Labour only called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in February 2024, months after the bombardment began. To distance itself from accusations of anti‑Semitism that plagued the Jeremy Corbyn era, Starmer adopted a zero‑tolerance approach to anti‑Semitism, which complicated efforts to critique Israel’s actions. Although the UK later recognised the state of Palestine and sanctioned settler entities, it simultaneously proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, leading to over 3,000 arrests linked to pro‑Palestine activism and continued arms sales to Israel.
Arms Export Controversies and Limited Restrictions
Despite periodic calls for a ceasefire, the UK has maintained substantial military ties with Israel. Oxfam research shows that since 2015 the UK has licensed at least £500 million ($671 m) worth of military exports to Israel, including roughly 15 % of the components for the F‑35 stealth fighter jet—such as ejector seats, targeting systems, and fuselage parts. In September 2024, after acknowledging that UK‑supplied arms were being used in Gaza, the government announced a partial suspension of 29 arms export licences while leaving nearly 350 active. An Al Jazeera investigation revealed that shipments worth 6.7 million shekels ($1.8 m) continued to reach Israel between October 2023 and October 2025, even after repeated UK ceasefire appeals. Critics argue that the suspension created a loophole, allowing indirect supply via the US‑led F‑35 programme, and that the measures fall far short of a comprehensive embargo.
Assessments of Burnham’s Impact: Symbolic or Substantive?
Political analysts view Burnham’s remarks as largely symbolic, intended to repair Labour’s image rather than precipitate an immediate policy overhaul. Tim Bale, a politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, suggested that Burnham is “trying to repair the damage” but that his statements are “probably more symbolic than substantive,” noting that the UK is already near the limits of what it can feasibly say or do regarding Israel. Bale warned that any criticism of Netanyahu’s government must be balanced against the UK’s historic commitment to Israel’s right to exist and the need to maintain relations with a strongly pro‑Israel United States administration. Yossi Mekelberg of Chatham House added that voter priorities such as inflation, energy security, and immigration are likely to outweigh Gaza‑related concerns in upcoming elections, implying that Burnham’s stance may not translate into decisive foreign‑policy shifts without broader political pressure.
Prospects for a Genuine Shift in UK Gaza Policy
The UK’s traditional alignment with Israel presents structural obstacles to a radical policy reversal. Experts like Tahani Mustafa of the European Council on Foreign Relations caution that Burnham’s acknowledgements, while a step in the right direction, remain “platitudes” unless accompanied by concrete measures such as a full arms embargo, stricter enforcement of existing export controls, or tangible support for Palestinian statehood. Mustafa warned that avoiding the label of genocide preserves a legal accountability mechanisms. However, she conceded that if Burnham follows through with serious accountability efforts—potentially encouraging other states to adopt similar positions—it could mark a meaningful milestone. Ultimately, whether Burnham’s apology leads to substantive change will depend on his ability to reconcile moral imperatives with entrenched strategic alliances, domestic electoral calculus, and international legal obligations.