Burnham wields Israeli settlement sanctions as electoral strategy

Andy Burnham has made a calculation that would have seemed politically treacherous a generation ago: that taking a hard line against Israeli settlements is not a liability but an asset. On Tuesday, the prime minister announced a trade ban on goods produced in illegal West Bank settlements and sanctions against those who finance or build them. When Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, pressed him on defence spending during prime minister's questions the following day, Burnham pivoted deliberately to the settlement policy, framing it as a matter of British moral leadership. "Britain has to stand for something," he said, with Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband seated beside him. "Where people are being bullied out of their homes and intimidated, we will always stand with the underdog."

The Israeli government responded swiftly and sharply, announcing the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem. Within his own party, Badenoch has led the domestic opposition, writing in the Jewish Chronicle that Burnham risked "fanning the flames of antisemitism here at home" and comparing Labour's approach to that of Jeremy Corbyn. But the Conservative response has been fractured. Tom Tugendhat, the shadow foreign secretary, objected to what he called "performative politics" and acting alone, though he affirmed support for ending violence and a two-state solution. Edward Leigh, the longest-serving MP in the Commons, broke ranks entirely, telling Parliament he was "proud" to support the government's action as a matter of "freedom, for morality and for justice."

Burnham's political reading appears grounded in solid electoral terrain. A YouGov poll conducted earlier in the summer found that half of British voters backed a ban on trade with West Bank settlements, while only 16 percent opposed it. Notably, the support crossed party lines: while Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Green voters showed the strongest backing, even Conservative and Reform voters favored the measure overall. This breadth of support suggests the policy carries less political risk than it might have in earlier years.

The announcement is also a deliberate attempt to recapture ground Labour has lost. Since the 2024 election, the party has hemorrhaged support among progressive and Muslim voters, many of whom remain angry over comments made by then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer shortly after the Gaza war began, when he said he believed Israel had the right to cut off water and electricity to Palestinians. That disaffection proved consequential: Muslim voter anger was cited as a factor in the Green Party's victory in Gorton and Denton, and Labour lost significant ground to the Greens during local elections, which saw the party take multiple councils and mayoralties in central London.

The Greens, however, are not satisfied. Zack Polanski, the party's leader in England and Wales, called the settlement ban "only a first step" and demanded a full embargo on goods, services, and investment. Labour and the Greens are now competing directly for the Holborn and St Pancras seat, which Starmer vacated. Though the settlement policy was developed before that byelection was called, it will almost certainly become a tool for Labour canvassers seeking to reassure core voters that the party has shifted its position. Whether the move is enough to stem the flow of progressive and Muslim voters to the Greens, or whether it merely signals a direction without the substance those voters demand, remains to be tested.