From hesitancy to ‘enough is enough’: how Britain’s position on Israel shifted under Burnham

LONDON (MNTV) — Britain’s posture toward Israel has shifted further in the past year than at any point in decades — from the cautious, incremental steps of Keir Starmer’s government to a sweeping package of sanctions and recognitions under his successor, Andy Burnham. 

As the third anniversary of the Gaza genocide arrives, the trajectory tells the story of a governing party dragged, by public pressure and its own conscience, toward confrontation with a longtime ally.

The journey began hesitantly. In September 2024, Starmer’s government suspended around 30 of roughly 350 arms export licences to Israel — those deemed usable in offensive operations in Gaza. In 2025 it sanctioned two Israeli ministers, finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, in a personal capacity, for inciting violence against Palestinians. 

And later that year, Britain took the historic step of formally recognising the State of Palestine, joining France and others in a coordinated wave.

But it was the arrival of Andy Burnham as prime minister in July 2026 that marked the decisive break. 

On September 8, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband stood in the House of Commons and announced what he called a “comprehensive reset” of U.K. policy. 

The government, he said, now recognised the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, declared the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, and would impose its most significant measures to date.

Those measures were substantial. 

Britain banned the import of all goods produced in illegal West Bank settlements; sanctioned the organisations, businesses and individuals financing settlement expansion; prohibited the advertising and sale of settlement properties in the U.K.; and expanded settler sanctions to 38 individuals. 

On arms, Miliband went further than Starmer had dared, pledging to refuse all licence applications for exports that “materially contribute to the occupation” — what he called a “double lock” against such sales.

Burnham framed the shift in moral terms. Writing in the Guardian, he acknowledged that for too long Britain had been hesitant to act, fearful of being accused of anti-Israel bias. Miliband, addressing the Labour conference, called the Israeli government’s conduct “a stain on the conscience of the world” and spoke of “a deep sense of shame” over what had unfolded in Palestine.

Israeli response

Netanyahu’s government ordered the closure of Britain’s long-standing consulate in Jerusalem — open since 1838 — in retaliation for the settlement sanctions, and Israeli officials accused London of discrimination against Jewish people. Burnham, notably, has not spoken to Netanyahu since taking office.

Yet for all the rhetoric, experts argue Burnham’s reset still falls short of what protesters have demanded through two years of mass marches: a full, two-way arms embargo. 

As the investigative outlet Declassified U.K. pointed out, the arms restrictions target only exports that “materially contribute” to the occupation — leaving broader military trade, and Britain’s own reliance on Israeli arms firms, largely intact. 

Burnham has shown no sign of implementing a complete embargo, and his government has continued to face sharp criticism over its treatment of Palestinian protesters, including the proscription of Palestine Action and the mass arrests at Labour’s own conference.

The movement that filled Britain’s streets for two years called for three things: an arms ban, sanctions, and recognition of Palestine. 

Burnham’s government can now claim to have delivered versions of all three. Whether that represents a genuine reckoning or, as campaigners put it, the bare minimum belatedly offered, may define how this chapter of British policy is ultimately judged.