The truth is Burnham’s mea culpa on Gaza was nothing but a change in tone

Submitted by

Barry Malone

Thu, 07/16/2026 - 15:09

Britain’s anointed prime minister's Gaza apology contained nothing of substance for the victims of genocide – or anyone else

Children react as Palestinians inspect the site of an Israeli strike on a tent at a camp sheltering displaced people, in Gaza City on 7 July, 2026 (Ebrahim Hajjaj/Reuters)

On the surface, it certainly seemed a very big deal.

Andy Burnham, Britain’s prime minister-in-waiting, had apologised for Gaza. "Labour’s initial response to the treatment of Gaza caused huge hurt. We got it wrong and I am sorry for that," he posted on social media along with a three-minute video.

The key word there, absent from some headlines, was "initial".

And that word is important because we need to understand exactly what Burnham was saying sorry for if we are to have a sense of how his moral compass could intersect with a record of political expediency when it comes to diplomacy.

On 11 October 2023, Kier Starmer, now prime minister and then leader of the Labour Party opposition, sat down for what should have been a routine interview with LBC’s Nick Ferrari.

What he said, though, was to become his defining moment for many on the left.

Initially, Starmer dutifully trotted out the lines that all mainstream British politicians were repeating – lines taken from the mantras that Israel has pushed for years.

Firstly, Israel had the right to defend itself. Secondly, everything Israel was doing in Gaza was the fault of Hamas for carrying out the 7 October attack.

But when asked by Ferrari if it was an appropriate response for Israel to lay siege to the Palestinian enclave and cut off its power and water supplies, Starmer replied: "I think Israel does have the right". Extraordinarily, he had, in effect, endorsed war crimes.

'Real hurt'

As fury grew, it took nine days for some mealy-mouthed context to be added, when a spokesperson said he had meant that Israel had a general right to defend itself.

That appears to be what Burnham is primarily distancing himself from.

Andy Burnham has rightly spoken out on Labour's Gaza shame. Now comes the hard part

David Hearst

Though it wasn’t directly called out in his video statement, the implication was there, and a few days later Burnham expanded on the point in an interview with Gary Lineker - a British footballing icon forced out of the BBC for his anti-genocide position.

"In my view, it was wrong for the suggestion to be made that essential supplies could be closed off," he said. "It was an impression given but sometimes in politics when those impressions land with people, they can cause real hurt."

The only other substantive criticism of his predecessor was that Starmer had called for a ceasefire too late.

Burnham himself, as mayor of Manchester, had called for one alongside local council leaders on 27 October 2023.

It’s worth noting that, by then, more than 7,000 Palestinians had been killed, including more than 3,000 children. Some 1.7 million people had been made homeless, and healthcare facilities and schools were being attacked daily.

Also, what material difference would it have made? When has Israel ever genuinely responded to "calls" to do anything, even from its closest supporters?

Expecting a Labour careerist like Burnham to call the genocide a genocide was always fanciful.

But where was the apology for slavishly backing the Israeli government diplomatically and militarily as it slaughtered more than 73,000 people, including 21,000 children? Where was the apology for the silence as medics and journalists were murdered on an industrial scale? And where was the apology for supplying the Israeli army with components for the F-35 jets it uses to kill Palestinian civilians?

Bleeding support

Even Burnham’s ideas on how "to do better" were relatively empty and toothless. There was nothing measurably new, nothing creative, nothing that suggested any real acceptance of the fact that the existing world order has been blown to pieces.

And yet, Britain’s centrist commentariat treated his statement as a real break with what had come before.

Breathless big-name journalists rushed to characterise his stance as "a significant shift" or "a significant intervention". That it was considered so consequential neatly demonstrates the limited wiggle room western politicians have on Palestine, and the grip the pro-Israel lobby has on them.

We were also treated to the galling and shameless spectacle of Starmer government ministers welcoming Burnham’s apology as if they hadn’t been in lockstep with the prime minister in running cover for the genocide for almost three years.

They embraced it loudly because they, like Burnham, know that Labour is bleeding more supporters to the leftist Greens than to the far-right Reform UK. They know, too, that many of those people have turned their backs on the party because of Gaza, including swathes of middle-class liberals and huge numbers of Muslims.

That, at heart, is what the apology was about.

Fresh thinking

Burnham’s statement may also have revealed a leader with no strong ideas about Britain’s place in the world or how it should evolve - as briefings to political correspondents in the UK from people who know him have suggested.

Because here’s the thing: Andy Burnham, for all his down-home northern-boy-done-good posturing, was raised in the Labour Party, holding only one job outside of politics in his adult life: a brief three years at a trade magazine from the age of 21.

Here's what Burnham must do if he really wants to reset Labour's Palestine policy

And even a cursory glance at the record of the former Tony Blair lieutenant shows a man who has always flowed with the tide on the big foreign policy questions.

He voted in favour of the war on Iraq in 2003. Then in 2010, during a failed bid for the Labour leadership, he defended that decision despite it being clear by then that the invasion was a disaster that needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

He also consistently voted against calls for investigations into Britain’s role in the invasion, and in 2011 loyally supported the UK’s disastrous intervention in Libya.

But – and here is where the cynical Burnham comes into view – in 2024, when it had become politically smart to do so, he said that he did in fact regret his Iraq war vote.

While some have suggested that Burnham’s “Manchesterism” philosophy could be adapted into a foreign policy framework, the former mayor himself doesn’t appear to be someone who will develop anything approaching a diplomatic doctrine.

But fresh thinking has never been more urgent. International law, for all that it ever existed, is in tatters; US President Donald Trump is an erratic player with a demonstrated ability to upend longstanding realities with lightning speed; China and Russia are growing in strength; and middle powers are clubbing together for protection.

Instead of rising to that moment, though, expect the new prime minister to maintain the status quo on Ukraine, slightly soften relations with the European Union and, despite previously strong criticism, take a pragmatic approach to Trump. On Israel-Palestine: incremental steps if any.

Writing in The Times newspaper, Burnham was also careful to reassure the security establishment and arms industry that he would, as all prime ministers are expected to do, continue to increase defence spending.

But he needs to accept that an anarchic world is not predictable, and if as some have suggested, he thinks he can focus on domestic issues while spending less time on the international stage, he will have a rude awakening, fast.

For a British public as engaged as ever in foreign policy after almost three years of Israeli genocide in Gaza, the same old Labour will not be enough.

The truth is that Burnham’s mea culpa on Gaza was nothing but a change in tone. It was not the politics of substance. It was the politics of what young people call “vibes”.

And vibes will not be enough to bring people back to Labour.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

UK Politics

Opinion

Post Date Override

Update Date

Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29

Update Date Override