Andy Burnham’s decision to discuss Gaza with Gary Lineker raises a revealing question: was this a serious attempt to address one of the world’s most complex conflicts, or a carefully chosen platform designed to avoid difficult scrutiny?
Burnham presented a familiar indictment of Israel, accusing its government of violating the ceasefire and worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He also suggested that war crimes may have been committed and argued that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is making a two-state solution impossible.
What was largely absent was any comparable examination of Hamas. There was no serious discussion of its failure to disarm, its violations of ceasefire terms, its obstruction of aid or the continuing consequences of the 7 October attacks. Nor was there recognition that Hamas’s massacre, kidnappings and continued military control of Gaza have themselves made any credible peace process vastly more difficult.
Lineker left the BBC after controversy over sharing a social-media post about Zionism that included an image of a rat. He apologised, but Jewish communal organisations described the apology as inadequate. Against that background, Burnham’s decision to use Lineker as a vehicle for another intervention on Gaza appeared to speak to a sympathetic audience without facing informed challenge.
The episode also exposes a broader uncertainty about Burnham himself. He once spoke of making Israel his first foreign visit as Labour leader, in solidarity with Israel and British Jews. His current rhetoric is markedly different. That shift will strengthen the suspicion that his position is being shaped less by principle than by the electoral coalition he hopes to assemble.
For British Jews, the concern is not simply that another politician has criticised Israel. It is that Israel is being singled out, Hamas is being minimised, and Jewish anxieties are being treated as politically expendable. Burnham may believe this strategy helps his route to Downing Street. It may instead leave voters asking the most basic question of all: what does he actually believe, and does it even matter?
