By Daniel Frost
When Andy Burnham assumed office as Britain’s Prime Minister, expectations among pro-Palestine advocates were markedly subdued. The preceding period under Sir Keir Starmer had entrenched a foreign policy rooted in unyielding alignment with Israel. Starmer’s administration consistently declined to characterize the military campaign in Gaza as genocide and resisted calling the aggressive expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank ethnic cleansing. Given Burnham’s long-standing political ties to Labour Friends of Israel, few observers anticipated a structural departure from his predecessor’s approach.
The policy announcements made by the administration represented a notable tactical recalibration. Admitting that the government had failed to gauge the gravity of the humanitarian crisis, Burnham introduced trade restrictions targeting products originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The measures explicitly ban imports of agricultural goods, including Medjool dates produced on illegally occupied Palestinian land. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband framed these steps as a fundamental reset of British foreign policy, explicitly declaring the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory unlawful and acknowledging the systemic displacement of Palestinians as ethnic cleansing.
By instituting targeted trade bans, Downing Street has acknowledged that continued economic engagement with settlement enterprises makes the United Kingdom complicit in violations of international humanitarian law.
This policy shift marks a significant departure from decades of British diplomatic equivocation. By instituting targeted trade bans, Downing Street has acknowledged that continued economic engagement with settlement enterprises makes the United Kingdom complicit in violations of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, the decision to restrict certain arms exports that directly enable the occupation indicates a willingness to use state regulatory power to signal moral limits. International law experts have long argued that third-party states carry an obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to refrain from aiding or assisting in the maintenance of illegal territorial occupations. In this narrow respect, the policy aligns British trade posture with global legal norms.
Despite the rhetoric of a historic reset, the new stance exhibits fundamental contradictions that undermine its efficacy. The most glaring omission is the administration’s continued reluctance to label the military action in Gaza a genocide. Despite detailed assessments from United Nations experts and international human rights organizations outlining severe civilian casualties, deliberate starvation tactics, and mass displacement, the British government maintains that such terminology can only be adopted following a formal ruling by the International Court of Justice. This reliance on delayed legalism contrasts sharply with the immediate, decisive language used to describe settlement expansion in the West Bank. By creating a hierarchy of violations, the government appears to apply legal standards selectively depending on political convenience.
Exempting domestic manufacturing facilities and corporate subsidiaries from sanctions allows defense contractors to circumvent the spirit of export restrictions.
The selective nature of the arms export restrictions further illustrates the incomplete scope of the policy. While the government has announced bans on weapons that directly contribute to the occupation, it has left critical supply chains untouched. Most notably, the UK continues to permit the operations of major defence contractors like Elbit Systems, which maintains sixteen manufacturing sites across the country. Elbit Systems plays a pivotal role in supplying the surveillance architecture, electronic barriers, and military hardware utilized throughout the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Allowing military suppliers deeply integrated into the occupation structure to operate unhindered within British borders directly contradicts the claim of a comprehensive embargo.
A truly principled arms embargo requires a holistic review of all military components, dual-use technologies, and manufacturing licenses. The defense industry operates on globalized supply chains where components exported from British soil are routinely integrated into complex weapons systems used in combat zones. By exempting domestic manufacturing facilities and corporate subsidiaries from the scope of sanctions, the British government allows defense contractors to circumvent the spirit of export restrictions while claiming compliance with their technical wording.
The disconnect between foreign policy declarations and domestic governance presents an equally serious challenge. While the Foreign Office acknowledges the vital role played by public mobilization in highlighting the plight of Palestinians, the Home Office continues to enforce stringent restrictions on peaceful protest. Under the Crime and Policing Act, police forces retain broad authority to impose severe limits on public demonstrations, including bans on repeat marches, megaphones, and traditional percussion instruments. Activists facing prosecution and suspended sentences for exercising their right to assemble illustrate a government at war with its own domestic constituency.
When a government praises public conscience internationally while criminalizing its expression at home, it creates an unviable moral hypocrisy.
Democratic governance requires alignment between external moral claims and internal civil rights. When a government praises public conscience on the international stage while simultaneously criminalizing the public expression of that conscience at home, it creates an unviable moral hypocrisy. The criminalization of peaceful dissent signals that the administration views public advocacy not as a legitimate driver of democratic policy, but as an inconvenient domestic disturbance to be managed through executive policing powers.
Geopolitically, Britain’s partial policy reset leaves it vulnerable to external pressure from both allies and adversaries. Without a firm, comprehensive commitment to international law, the government risks alienating international coalition partners while failing to satisfy domestic demand for accountability. The United States continues to exert immense diplomatic pressure on European allies to maintain uniform defense cooperation with Israel. By adopting an intermediate stance, London finds itself caught in a diplomatic twilight zone: criticized by Washington for imposing trade sanctions, yet condemned by civil society for failing to enforce a complete embargo.
If the Burnham administration intends to establish a coherent and morally defensible foreign policy, it must bridge the gap between incremental diplomatic gestures and structural accountability. A meaningful policy on Israel and Palestine cannot be constructed on partial sanctions and selective legal definitions. True leadership requires matching domestic rights with international principles, ensuring that state power actively defends international law rather than merely managing political fallout. Until Downing Street addresses its internal contradictions, its policy reset will remain an exercise in partial pragmatism rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
About the Author
Daniel Frost is a Foreign affairs columnist specializing in global geopolitics, European security, and strategic policy.