a scar on our collective conscience
In the long and unresolved struggle over how Western democracies should respond to conflict in the Middle East, Andy Burnham — Labour's presumptive next prime minister — has stepped forward to acknowledge what many within his party have long felt: that Britain's initial response to the war in Gaza was a moral failure. His apology, offered to the Guardian, is both a reckoning with the past and a signal of where he intends to take the country — toward sanctions, trade restrictions on settlement goods, and a more assertive demand for peace. It is the kind of moment that reveals how electoral consequence and moral conscience, when they finally align, can move even the most cautious of political institutions.
- Labour has been hemorrhaging voters — particularly progressives and Muslim communities — who felt the party chose diplomatic caution over human conscience when Gaza burned.
- Burnham's public apology breaks an unspoken rule of British politics: that a prime minister-in-waiting does not openly criticize the sitting leader of his own party.
- He is proposing concrete pressure — sanctions, settlement trade bans, sustained ceasefire demands — but refuses to cross the threshold of calling the situation a genocide, drawing immediate fire from the left.
- Critics argue that acknowledging war crimes without naming genocide is a legal and moral sleight of hand that allows arms sales to continue and accountability to be deferred to international courts.
- The question of whether Burnham's repositioning can rebuild trust with lost voters — or whether it will fracture Labour further along its internal fault lines — now hangs over the party's future.
Andy Burnham, the man most expect to lead Britain next, has done something rare in modern politics: he said his party was wrong. In an interview with the Guardian, he acknowledged that Labour's early response to the war in Gaza fell short, and he pledged a harder line — sanctions against Israeli officials, potential trade restrictions on goods from illegal settlements, and a more urgent push for a ceasefire.
The apology lands against a backdrop of real political damage. When Keir Starmer suggested in the days after the October 2023 Hamas attack that Israel had the right to cut off power and water to Gaza, the remark cost Labour dearly. It took him nearly two weeks to clarify, and months more before he formally recognized Palestinian statehood. A recent poll found that two-thirds of Labour voters who switched to the Greens cited the party's Gaza position as a reason for leaving.
Burnham's language was direct: he knows many people feel Labour didn't get it right, and he is sorry. He described the suffering in Gaza as a scar on the collective conscience — Palestinians dying, aid arriving in insufficient quantities, Israeli forces expanding their reach. He also condemned the Hamas attacks of October 7 and was careful to insist that holding the Netanyahu government to account is entirely compatible with opposing antisemitism.
But he stopped short of calling what is happening in Gaza a genocide — a demand central to his party's left wing. He said there is increasing evidence of war crimes and that international courts, not politicians, should make the final determination. Critics, including the Green Party's deputy leader, called this a convenient evasion: if war crimes are acknowledged, they argued, Britain is legally obligated to halt arms sales immediately.
The intervention implicitly criticizes Starmer's handling of the issue and signals that a Burnham-led government would operate differently — though how differently remains uncertain. He has not committed to banning all arms shipments, and he faces pressure to reconsider the proscription of Palestine Action, a direct action group whose legal status was recently upheld by the court of appeal.
What the moment reveals is a party trying to find its footing on an issue that has exposed deep divisions between its leadership instincts and the values of a significant part of its base. Whether Burnham's apology marks a genuine turning point — or simply a more eloquent version of the same cautious middle ground — is a question that events in Gaza, and in British politics, will eventually answer.
Andy Burnham, the figure widely expected to become Britain's next prime minister, has broken with his party's cautious approach to Israel and Palestine. In an interview with the Guardian, he acknowledged that Labour's initial response to the war in Gaza was inadequate, and he committed to a markedly tougher stance toward the Israeli government—one that includes new sanctions, potential trade restrictions on settlement goods, and sustained pressure for a ceasefire.
The apology carries weight because it signals a pivot away from the position that has cost Labour dearly among its own voters. When Keir Starmer, the current prime minister, made remarks shortly after the October 2023 Hamas attack suggesting Israel had the right to cut off power and water to Gaza, the comment rippled through the party and beyond. It took him nearly two weeks to clarify what he meant. Later, it took months of pressure—including from his own cabinet—before he formally recognized Palestine as a state. An Opinium poll conducted for the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign in June found that two-thirds of Labour voters who switched to the Greens cited the party's Gaza position as a factor in their departure.
Burnham's language is direct. "I know many people feel that at the start of Israel's military action in Gaza my party didn't get it right and I am sorry about that," he said. He acknowledged that while Labour has taken some steps—formal recognition of Palestine, sanctions on Israeli ministers and violent settlers, restrictions on arms licenses—the government was slow to call for a ceasefire and has not gone far enough. He described the suffering in Gaza as "a scar on our collective conscience," with Palestinians continuing to die, aid flowing in at insufficient levels, and Israeli forces expanding their control.
Yet Burnham stopped short of a full break with the government's cautious framing. He declined to call what is happening in Gaza a genocide, despite it being a central demand from the left wing of his party. Instead, he said there is "increasing evidence" of war crimes and that international courts, not politicians, should make the final determination. This distinction drew immediate criticism. Mothin Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party, accused Burnham of using the courts as cover—suggesting that acknowledging war crimes would legally obligate Britain to halt arms sales immediately.
The substance of Burnham's proposed shift includes measures already being explored by Foreign Office ministers: banning trade in goods from illegal Israeli settlements while protecting legitimate commerce with Israel itself. He also signaled openness to further sanctions targeting those involved in violence in Gaza and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where settler violence has surged and Palestinian communities face displacement.
Burnham sought to reassure Jewish communities that his repositioning does not reflect any softening on antisemitism, which he said has risen in the UK. "There is no contradiction between a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism and holding the Netanyahu government to account," he said, adding that he would "always take a fair and balanced approach and stand up for what is right." He also strongly condemned the Hamas attacks of October 7.
The timing of this intervention is unlikely to sit well with Starmer, who has worked to chart a middle course on the issue. Burnham's apology implicitly criticizes the prime minister's handling of the matter, and it signals that a Labour government under Burnham would operate differently. Whether that difference extends to the arms sales question—where pressure from the left continues to mount—remains unclear. Burnham has not committed to banning all shipments, which still include spare parts for F-35 fighter jets. He also faces calls to reconsider the government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action, a direct action group whose proscription was ruled lawful by the court of appeal in June.
What emerges is a picture of a party trying to recalibrate after losing voters and credibility on an issue that matters deeply to significant portions of its base. Whether Burnham's repositioning will be enough to win back those voters, or whether it will deepen divisions within Labour itself, remains to be seen.
Citações Notáveis
I know many people feel that at the start of Israel's military action in Gaza my party didn't get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better.— Andy Burnham
There is no contradiction between a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism and holding the Netanyahu government to account.— Andy Burnham
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Burnham's apology matter now, when Labour is already in government?
Because he's signaling what comes next. He's not just apologizing for the past—he's telling voters that under his leadership, the approach changes. That's a promise about the future.
But he won't call it genocide. Doesn't that undercut the apology?
It does, for many people. He's trying to hold two things at once: acknowledge the suffering and the evidence of war crimes, but stay within a legal framework that doesn't force his hand on arms sales. It's a compromise, and compromises leave everyone partially unsatisfied.
Two-thirds of Labour voters who left for the Greens cited Gaza. Can an apology bring them back?
An apology alone won't. They need to see action—actual sanctions, actual trade restrictions, actual shifts in arms policy. Words matter less than what follows them.
What does this do to Starmer?
It's a public critique of his judgment. Burnham is saying the prime minister got it wrong, moved too slowly, and didn't go far enough. That's not something a successor usually says about his predecessor while they're still in office.
Is there a risk Burnham goes too far and alienates Jewish voters?
He's trying to prevent that by being explicit about antisemitism and condemning Hamas. But yes, there's a tightrope. The question is whether voters see him as principled or as someone trying to have it both ways.