Andy Burnham Is Just Another Cowardly Leader

Wednesday stories (8 pm UK time) are by Sally Prag. Sunday stories (at the same time) feature the work of a range of writers. With the gradual evolution of the JPF, I am keeping all regular posts free but will be introducing a new column for paying subscribers called Book Talk — all about books relevant to Jewish life and literature. Watch this space! For now, if you would like to support me with a one-time donation, click here.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY! The JPF isn’t here for polite debates or academic footnotes — we’re dismantling antisemitism one idiot, one coward, one apologist at a time.

I know I am far from the first person to be writing on the abysmal statement by Andy Burnham regarding Israel and Gaza on 9th July 2026. I’ve read some excellent analyses including Andrew Fox’s brilliant response which led a retort in terms of antisemitism, the disregard of Jewish lives, and went on to illustrate the more chilling consequences of the stand Burnham has taken. Fox went on to address the complete disappearance of Hamas’s role in beginning the war and refusal to accept any responsibility for protecting Gazan civilian lives, and how Burnham has caved to the pressure upon the Labour government, and indeed UK politicians in general.

Many see this as a continuation of Labour’s antisemitism from the Corbyn era. Others as posturing in preparation for the next general election, to win back the voters for whom Israel and Gaza are the deciding factors.

I think there’s a great deal of credibility in this speculation. Whatever the motive, Burnham clearly went from a dependable, individualistic figure in his far more minor role as Mayor of Manchester to one upon which baited breath awaited his utterances on what is evidently the most pressing issue for Brits today — Israel and Gaza. Oh, wait, no it isn’t. Is it?

My hope in Andy Burnham was in the fact that he stood his ground on not calling the war in Gaza a “genocide”. I believed that in itself showed strength of character. That he was able to remain strong despite the pressure by politicians, Muslim leaders, competition from further to the left, and the tantruming cowardly British public who want what they want and will scream and stamp their feet — but won’t do anything to practically help anyone.

That hope was shattered by his statement. But not because he changed his tune about using the word “genocide”. It was shattered because he caved to the pressure to speak about an issue that has been artificially inflated to takeover British politics and that has divided the population in unspeakable ways that bear little relation to the reality the Israelis and Palestinians are living. He spoke to the the judging ears of leftist progressives, used the correct buzz words, and affirmed their criticism of the Labour government’s failures under Starmer.

He rose to the Labour traditions of backstabbing his predecessor rather than proving himself to be a new, improved incarnation of leader.

In all of his mumblings, he still didn’t utter The Word.

And thus, despite every effort he made to beg and bow to the whip-crackers, he still failed the litmus test.

I know he did because I talk with people who sit in the radical margins of the Israel debate. The haters. The ones who suck up every pseudo-analytical alternative media report on Israel’s evil. I know that until Burnham utters those words, their votes will still go to Zack Think-Your-Boobs-Bigger Polanski and his unicorn-fairyland world in which he believes Islamists love him and all his gay and trans friends. Yes, even those radicals who actually dislike the gay and trans movement will still vote for him over Burnham, simply because he speaks of genocide and uses the word Zionism in the “correct” slurrish way.

The irony is that I suspect everyone knows this, including Burnham.

I suspect he knows exactly what he did, exactly how pathetic it was, and did it anyway.

In modern British politics, especially on the left, there is an ever-shrinking corridor of acceptable opinion. Step outside it and you are no longer merely mistaken; you are morally contaminated. Politicians know this. They know there are words that must be spoken, villains who must be identified, and complexities that must be quietly left outside the room.

That is the political economy of outrage. It rewards conformity, not courage.

I don’t believe Burnham genuinely believes a word of what he said, but he now occupies a world built on political incentives, not integrity. Labour has watched voters drift towards the Greens over Gaza, and no aspiring leader can ignore that reality. No one is fooled that Burnham’s tougher rhetoric is anything but an attempt to reconnect with progressive voters who abandoned Labour over its earlier stance.

But there is a catch. The people demanding these declarations are not asking to be persuaded. They are asking to be affirmed, and the parameters they set are stringent.

He condemned Israel more forcefully. He apologised. He promised greater pressure. He edged closer to the approved position. Yet he still refused to utter the one word that now functions as a passport into the movement: genocide.

Because this is no longer a debate about policy; it is a ritual.

Every public figure is invited to prove their moral purity by repeating the correct liturgy. There is always one more confession to make, one more denunciation to issue, one more ideological checkpoint to pass. The finish line keeps moving because the purpose is not agreement. The purpose is continual demonstration of loyalty.

And here is the tragedy.

None of this helps a single Palestinian.

Not one child in Gaza receives more food because another British politician has perfected the language of condemnation. Not one hostage comes home. Not one Hamas commander lays down his weapons because Westminster has adopted New Speak for Israel.

The conversation increasingly excludes the very questions that might actually matter, such as what political future is possible for Gaza after Hamas? How can Palestinians build institutions that are accountable to Palestinians rather than to an armed Islamist movement? How can ordinary Gazans be protected from rulers who have repeatedly invested in tunnels, rockets and perpetual war while crushing dissent at home?

Change requires looking at the very root of the problem. But the mob is motivated to distract every single public voice away from looking. It’s not about creating meaningful change, it’s about destroying Israel, bit by bit.

If a British leader really wants to lead a movement towards peace, justice, dignity and equal rights, he needs to stop bowing to the mob. Burnham needs to answer real questions, not simply pass the cult admissions test.

Where are the discussions about empowering Palestinians who reject both Hamas and permanent conflict? Where are the conversations with Palestinians from across the political spectrum — those in Gaza, the West Bank and the diaspora — who have different visions for their future? Where is the curiosity about what Palestinians themselves disagree about?

These questions are inconvenient because they require treating Palestinians as human beings rather than permanent symbols.

It is easier to perform outrage than to grapple with the uncomfortable reality that Gaza’s future depends not only on Israel’s decisions, but also on who governs Palestinians, what incentives that leadership faces, and whether the international community is willing to stop rewarding perpetual rejectionism.

That conversation is difficult. It is nuanced. And it will upset the loudest babies in the room.

It is not just another carefully calibrated statement from another ambitious politician. But if one is earnest about change, it could actually be the beginning of helping Palestinians build a future that is freer, safer and more prosperous than the one Hamas has given them.

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to subscribe and if this resonated with you, feel free to restack/share/give it some love.

Make a one-time donation