Replies (1)

• @flick@spinster.club 2026-09-19 20:02

  When Andy Burnham was quizzed at PMQs last week about his and Ed Miliband’s decision to sanction the Israeli government over its handling of Gaza, the Prime Minister was surprisingly frank about the trade-offs. He presented it as a decision to prevent ‘the collapse of the two-state solution’ for a peace deal in the Middle East, which he claimed was ‘dying before our eyes’. In his statement to the Commons, Miliband referred to ‘ethnic cleansing’. But Burnham also admitted: ‘We gave the most careful consideration to… all of the risks. The Foreign Secretary and I took close advice from the security services and, of course, officials in the Foreign Office and in our embassies.’ Such is the soggy consensus among MPs and the public that this righteous approach is justified that few seem to have asked what these risks were. The truth is that Burnham and Miliband ignored the advice they were given – which was that if they were determined to sanction Israel, they should not do so before the Israeli election on 27 October. It may not be surprising that this was the message from the Israeli foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, when Miliband called him on 11 August to warn sanctions were imminent. ‘He said postpone it until after the elections,’ a diplomatic source confirms. It was also the message the Israeli embassy in London – and its new chargé d’affaires Chris Cantor – was relaying to the Foreign Office. ‘Their message was clear: why do it now? Wait until after the elections, because something might change,’ a senior Labour figure says. The British ambassador in Tel Aviv, Simon Walters, who was of the same opinion, delivered a ‘very explicit’ warning not to move so quickly. As a former director of national security for the Middle East in the Foreign Office, he had a deep understanding of the security implications. More remarkably, Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, was of the same view. He was the most important figure in government on foreign policy during Keir Starmer’s premiership, but now seems to have been ignored on the first major issue of Burnham’s tenure. What Powell and Walters sensed was that Benjamin Netanyahu, the combative Israeli Prime Minister, was in trouble in the polls and likely to lose his majority, and that any intervention before polling day would be weaponised by the Israeli right to drum up support for the government. This has been confirmed by three different sources. ‘Ed wants to get rid of Netanyahu and the Smotrich/Ben-Gvir lot [Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners],’ a senior security source says. ‘He was explicitly told that would be less likely if he did this.’ Miliband went ahead and announced an import ban on goods from Israeli settlements, tighter export controls on weapons, new powers to sanction individuals and companies trading in the West Bank, a ban on advertising or promoting settlement property in Britain and sanctions against five individuals who have been involved in inciting or carrying out violence against Palestinians. Israel responded by closing the British consulate in East Jerusalem (from where aid to the Palestinians is organised), removal of British representatives from Gaza NGOs, an end to British training for Palestinian Authority security forces and travel bans on 11 MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn. It is understood that both sides have further escalatory measures prepared if the other moves. The warnings about the political fallout have already proved correct. In the days before the government’s announcement, Netanyahu was under siege from claims, which he denies, that he was warned by the UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed about the 7 October terrorist attacks two weeks before they took place and failed to pass the warnings to Israel’s security services. ‘Netanyahu was taking a pounding,’ a senior security source says. ‘Then Miliband does his thing and the next day all the front pages say: “The UK, the bastards, I’m with Netanyahu, stand up for Israel, give him a break.”’ Burnham and Miliband’s position is that they needed to act before the election because tenders to build 1,200 homes on a settlement site called E1, an action seen as an impediment to a two-state solution, were due by 19 October. But insiders say that was an excuse and it is widely believed in Westminster that placating Labour MPs and winning back votes from the Greens in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election was the decisive factor. Tom Tugendhat, the shadow foreign secretary, says: ‘Having spoken to officials, it’s clear that the Foreign Office is largely of the opinion that this is performative and unhelpful.’

  Open ##4768164