Burnham compromised himself and his party by pandering to the antizionist crowd

He described the suffering in Gaza as a “scar on our collective conscience”. He called for further sanctions. He wants measures to ban trade in goods from “illegal” settlements.

Burnham acknowledged that Labour has already recognised a Palestinian state. But did it get that right? Should the UK have rewarded terror? Should Hamas have been able to claim that October 7 achieved state recognition? The UK has also sanctioned Israeli ministers and settlers and restricted arms licences. Apparently, this is simply “not enough”, and under Burnham’s leadership, Britain would take an even harder approach towards Israel.

But not towards Hamas or its patron, Iran. Not towards the terrorists who started this war with medieval brutality and genocidal intent. Not towards those who intentionally raped, mutilated and slaughtered innocents. Not towards those who held hostages in their tunnels and tortured, starved and executed them at will. Not towards those who brutalised, exploited and sacrificed ordinary Gazans. Burnham is surely aware that the ceasefire required Hamas to disarm and step aside. He is no doubt also aware that Hamas is, in fact, rearming, regrouping and preparing for the next round of hostilities, while it tortures, disappears and executes any opposition in Gaza.

Yet he intends to harden Britain’s approach towards Israel.

So, let’s tell it like it is. It is not so much that Labour “got it wrong”. Burnham is simply playing politics, which does not bode well for his premiership.

Labour haemorrhaged support over Gaza. Progressives abandoned the party for the Greens. Muslim voters deserted it in key constituencies. Two-thirds of those who left Labour said they did so because of the situation in Gaza. This is also a result of the perverse alliance between progressives and Islamists, who are diametrically opposed on almost every issue except one: their shared hatred of the Jewish state and, by association, Jews in general. It is the same hatred that has led to increased antisemitism and attacks on Jews in the UK. Yes, the same Jew-hatred Burnham condemned ever so briefly in his opening remarks.

For almost three years, Britain has witnessed weekly marches at which calls for Israel’s destruction have become commonplace. Bogus accusations of genocide, ethnic cleansing and deliberate starvation have been repeated as fact. There has been open support for proscribed terrorist organisations, growing intimidation of Jewish communities, record levels of antisemitism and the emergence of a political movement in which anti-Israel activism has become the organising principle around which progressive politics increasingly revolves. In short, Gaza, Lebanon and Israel are vote-winners in today’s Britain.

Burnham looked at all of that and decided not that politicians should resist the politics of intimidation and grievance, but that he should pander to the haters in an effort to win them back.

There is nothing unusual about a politician trying to recover lost voters. There is something deeply troubling, however, about a prime minister-in-waiting choosing to pander rather than lead. On this occasion, it is Israel and the Jews. But, as we know, it never stops with the Jews.

Britain’s policies towards Israel must be determined by British interests, regional realities, a clear understanding of the situation on the ground and the threats facing both countries. And yes, they should also be guided by truth, morality and British values – not by the number of Labour votes lost to the Greens or Gaza independents, in other words, the “red-green alliance”.

In his statement, Burnham said there was “increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed”. Is there really? To his credit, he accepted that any determination of genocide should be left to the international courts rather than politicians.

Then he sat down with Gary Lineker. An “interesting” choice for a soon-to-be prime minister: opting to be interviewed by a celebrity ex-footballer and television pundit rather than a seasoned journalist. But hey, the World Cup is grabbing our attention. Burnham wanted a piece of that, and who can blame him?

It is impossible to believe, however, that Burnham was unaware of the circumstances under which Lineker left the BBC. He surely knew that Lineker had shared an antisemitic post depicting a rat and had referred to the atrocities of October 7 as “that Hamas thing”.

In their conversation, Lineker suggested that part of Keir Starmer’s political failure resulted from the way he dealt with what Lineker called the “ongoing genocide” in Gaza. Burnham did not push back. He remained silent. He did not repeat his own position that such a judgement belonged to the courts. He allowed the accusation of the crime of crimes to be accepted as fact. He played along. He continued his criticism of Israel, expressed concern about the destruction of Gaza and referred to what he called the “disproportionate nature” of Israel’s response. What, in Burnham’s opinion, would have constituted a proportionate response?

He later said it was possible to criticise both October 7 and Israel’s response rather than “just pick a side”. First, the moral equivalence is as offensive as it is morally bankrupt. If Britain cannot choose between a radical Islamist, genocidal death cult that committed the atrocities of October 7 and a liberal, albeit imperfect, democracy fighting a war of necessity, then Britain has far greater problems than events in Gaza.

It is perfectly legitimate to ask questions about Israel’s prosecution of the war, which, by the way, was fought on seven fronts. Questions can be asked about individual attacks, the delivery of aid, military decision-making, government policy and the continued absence of a credible strategy for Gaza’s future. Israelis have spent almost three years arguing about those issues, with many protesting against their government and demanding accountability – at least those who were not too busy fighting and dying in the longest and most brutal war in their country’s history.

None of that changes why Israel had to respond to the greatest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust or why Hamas cannot be left armed or in power in Gaza.

Pretty much every practical consequence and action Burnham proposes is directed at Israel. Apparently, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran all get a free pass.

Labour has already restricted arms licences, recognised a Palestinian state, sanctioned Israeli ministers and settlers, restored funding to UNRWA and confirmed that Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he entered Britain. Israeli officers – officers from a valuable ally – have been banned from attending the Royal College of Defence Studies in London. An own goal by the British military if ever there was one.

Despite all this, Burnham’s conclusion is that it is inadequate and that Britain must act more forcefully against Israel.

He made his statement. He pandered to his target audience. Almost immediately, they demanded more. The Greens told him to call it genocide, end all arms sales and stop intelligence sharing with Israel. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign dismissed his statement as inadequate.

Appeasing the haters simply will not work. When has appeasing bullies ever worked? They will not be satisfied, only encouraged to demand ever greater concessions. They always have and always will. The destination never changes. Israel must become progressively more isolated, more heavily sanctioned and more politically toxic until maintaining a normal relationship with the Jewish state becomes impossible.

Britain’s relationship with Israel is not an act of charity or sentimental friendship. It includes intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, defence technology and cooperation against Iran, Islamist extremism and other common enemies. Ending intelligence cooperation may make an attractive slogan at a Green Party conference. It would not make Britain safer. When it comes to military and intelligence matters, Britain needs Israel a hell of a lot more than Israel needs Britain.

Britain is already struggling with growing sectarian politics. MPs have been threatened and intimidated over Gaza. Candidates have been targeted according to their positions on Israel. Public meetings have been disrupted. Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres require extensive security. Jewish people have been abused, intimidated, assaulted and even murdered, while politicians insist that antizionist rhetoric has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Burnham ignores this at his peril.

He can believe that Labour made mistakes after October 7. It surely did. Recognising a Palestinian state and rewarding Hamas was probably the biggest of all. He can criticise Israel. He can oppose its government. He can demand accountability where credible evidence exists. Hell, many of us will be right there with him.

But Burnham cannot portray his choice to make Gaza and Israel the subject of his first public statement as anything other than a cynical ploy and an electoral calculation. Labour lost votes. He wants them back. He is telling those voters exactly what he thinks they want to hear. But they will only want more. He caved when Lineker used the term “genocide” as an established fact. Pushing back would have compromised his message and his mission.

In making that choice, Burnham compromises himself. He compromises the Labour Party. He undermines the credibility of the government he is seeking to lead. He endangers the country for which he hopes to become responsible.

That is not leadership. It is pandering. It reeks of desperation and will cost Britain dearly.

Burnham should have a word with himself. He is better than that – or, for the sake of the country, one must hope he is.