Chris Mason: Burnham looks to show he will go further than Starmer with West Bank sanctions.

The United Kingdom’s recent decision to implement a ban on imports originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank marks another profoundly significant realignment of Britain’s foreign policy in the Middle East. This move, announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband with Prime Minister Andy Burnham standing prominently by his side in the House of Commons, comes almost exactly one year after the UK formally recognised a Palestinian state. The accompanying rhetoric from London has been uncharacteristically blunt, reflecting a heightened critical stance towards Israel’s conduct in the territories.

While senior government figures contend that this latest announcement is a logical and inevitable extension of the UK’s recognition of Palestine a year prior, it is also, in both its explicit wording and decisive action, a clear manifestation of Prime Minister Burnham’s stated ambition to chart a more assertive course than his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, was prepared to undertake. For Miliband and his team, the policy is fundamentally a re-assertion of the enduring logic underpinning the pursuit of a two-state solution – the vision of a viable, independent Palestinian state co-existing peacefully alongside Israel.

The Foreign Secretary articulated his position with notable passion, emphasising Britain’s capacity for agency on the global stage and rejecting the notion of diplomatic inertia. To do nothing, Miliband argued, would be tantamount to a failure of moral and political leadership. "A strategy of passivity in the face of what is happening is not a strategy," he asserted in an interview with Jewish News, underscoring the government’s belief that inaction would only perpetuate the status quo and further erode prospects for peace. The specific nature of the sanctions, targeting goods produced in settlements deemed illegal under international law, is designed to apply economic pressure and signal a clear distinction between Israel proper and the territories occupied since 1967. This ban extends to a range of products, from agricultural produce to industrial goods, forcing British importers to verify the provenance of their Israeli-labelled imports.

There is a palpable sense of pride within Miliband’s team that this initiative is not a solitary British venture but rather the culmination of a robust diplomatic effort spanning the summer months. This coordination has resulted in a broad, multilateral approach, with at least 11 other countries, including key European allies like France and Canada, adopting a similar posture. A Whitehall source revealed that the UK played a crucial "convening and coordinating role" in orchestrating this collective action, yet stressed that it wasn’t a matter of convincing reluctant partners. "We didn’t have to convince others to do this. They were coming to the same view themselves, so we agreed we should all go out and say this at the same time," the source explained. This coordinated international front is strategically vital, as it is hoped that a shared approach will amplify the impact of the measures on the ground while simultaneously minimising the potential for severe diplomatic or economic blowback directed at any single country from either Israel or its powerful ally, the United States.

UK officials had prudently anticipated a robust reaction from Israel, with the enforced closure of the British consulate in Jerusalem being one of the most likely retaliatory measures. This indeed materialised shortly after the announcement, signalling Israel’s strong disapproval of what it views as an unwarranted intervention in its internal affairs and a discriminatory act. While there is a weary, almost resigned acknowledgement in Whitehall that predicting the utterances of former President Donald Trump is an exercise in futility, it was noted with some relief that the initial reaction from the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, was remarkably understated. This measured response from Washington could indicate a strategic decision by the current US administration to avoid escalating tensions, or perhaps a recognition that such settlement policies are increasingly difficult to defend on the international stage, even among close allies.

Domestically, the decision to ban settlement imports has been met with significant applause from within the Labour movement and the broader British left, many of whom have long campaigned vociferously for such action. Indeed, approximately 140 Labour MPs publicly endorsed this demand at the start of the summer, reflecting a powerful grassroots and parliamentary imperative. Prime Minister Burnham himself had been explicit in his criticism of his predecessor’s approach to the Middle East, penning an article in July where he conceded: "Labour’s initial response to the treatment of Gaza caused huge hurt. We got it wrong and I am sorry about that." This public mea culpa was a clear signal of his intent to pivot Labour’s foreign policy.

In recent years, the Labour Party has experienced a significant haemorrhage of electoral support in many communities with substantial Muslim populations, largely attributed to its perceived equivocation on issues pertaining to Palestine and wider Middle East policy. For a new Labour prime minister, therefore, seeking to consolidate and expand the party’s electoral base by appealing to both the traditional left and disaffected voters, this decisive diplomatic intervention carries considerable political utility. It allows Burnham to reposition Labour as a party of moral conviction on the international stage and to address long-standing concerns among key demographics.

However, the policy has simultaneously ignited a fierce backlash from the Conservative opposition and within segments of the British Jewish community, presenting Prime Minister Burnham with another complex political and societal challenge. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, wasted no time in condemning the move, articulating her concerns in an opinion piece for the Jewish Chronicle. "Once again," Badenoch wrote, "British Jews find themselves warning their own government that its relentless demonisation of the world’s only Jewish state risks fanning the flames of antisemitism here at home." Her words echoed deep-seated anxieties within the community, fears that have been exacerbated by past incidents and the historical context of Labour’s own struggles with antisemitism.

The gravity of the situation was further underscored by the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, who issued a poignant statement declaring it "truly a dark day for Britain’s Jews." Such strong condemnation from a figure of his stature signifies the profound distress and alienation felt by many. This sentiment is not abstract; it is rooted in tangible experiences. Just last October, Andy Burnham, in his capacity as Mayor of Greater Manchester, was the local figurehead during the grim aftermath of a harrowing attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in the city. More recently, the community was shaken by a series of arson attacks on Jewish community ambulances in north-west London in the spring. These incidents serve as stark reminders of the vulnerability felt by British Jews and the chilling rise in antisemitic incidents across the UK.

Ed Miliband has attempted to pre-empt and address concerns about what Badenoch terms "demonisation" by unequivocally stating his view that "holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government is antisemitism, pure and simple." This distinction is critical to the government’s narrative, aiming to separate legitimate criticism of Israeli policy from prejudice against Jewish people. Yet, Labour figures are acutely aware of the party’s recent history; under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party’s relationship with many British Jews plummeted to dire levels, a situation that Sir Keir Starmer had prioritised rectifying in the early years of his own leadership. This fraught history means that the party’s relations with many British Jews have been exceptionally fragile for some time. The community, already feeling vulnerable after the Manchester synagogue attack and the later arson incidents, now perceives this new policy as potentially exacerbating an already tense climate.

Prime Minister Burnham therefore faces an exceptionally delicate balancing act. He must manage the profound anxiety and legitimate concerns within the British Jewish community while simultaneously making a compelling case for the government’s evolving stance. This diplomatic intervention, while lauded by many, places him firmly in the spotlight just weeks before he is scheduled to meet numerous international counterparts for the first time, where his foreign policy will undoubtedly be scrutinised. The success of his administration’s Middle East strategy will hinge not only on its international impact but also on its ability to navigate the fraught and often emotional domestic repercussions.