Two Press Releases, One Call: What the Miliband-Sa'ar Phone Call Indicates About UK-Israel Ties Under Burnham

New British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband held his first phone call with his Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa’ar. Despite speaking directly to each other, there were some discrepancies in their respective press releases, signaling how they view one another and perhaps how they want their relationship to be viewed at home.

The United Kingdom and Israel have had a tumultuous relationship since the latter’s independence from the British mandate in 1948, but recent decades have shown stability, with trade deals and military links. And this was evident in the phone call between Sa’ar and Miliband, with the Israeli politician praising the British decision to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. There were further agreements that Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons and that more should be done to stop the scourge of antisemitism around the world and in the UK, where anti-Semitic incidents have increased by over 20% in 2026.

Framing the relationship

But the most interesting aspect from the phone call was not what was said, but how it was framed. Let’s take Gideon Sa’ar’s perspective:

Gideon Sa’ar portrayed the meeting as a fruitful dialogue between two allies sharing a single goal: ending sectarian Islamist terrorism in the region. His central request was for the UK to proscribe Hezbollah’s financial arm, something that would directly benefit Israel. For Sa’ar, the wider aim is to strengthen ties with a wealthy, influential partner whose support can advance his country’s interests.

Compare this with Miliband’s press release:

The contents of the call totals 5 paragraphs. The first three of them were about disagreements and British criticism: the necessity for a two-state solution, fears about settler violence and settlement expansion, and the lack of humanitarian aid entering the Gaza Strip from the Israeli side.

The next paragraph, outlining the 'Day After' plan for Gaza, initially suggests disagreement between the Foreign Ministers. Miliband stated he 'reiterated' his position that Hamas must disarm and the IDF must withdraw from the strip. However, Sa'ar indicated that the plan would proceed once Hamas disarms, revealing that despite their different framing, both ministers are ultimately aligned on the end goal.

It is only after this that one paragraph attributed to Miliband, the son of Holocaust survivors, speaks about their shared interests.

Burnham's Britain

This could be the clearest preview of the UK’s foreign policy towards Israel under the premiership of Andy Burnham. They will likely align with Israel on many major policies, but they feel a need to highlight to the left-wing of their base that there are more fundamental differences than agreements, regardless of whether that is true.

The UK Labour Party holds little sympathy with Israel. A YouGov poll from June 2025 said that 47% of Labour voters support the Palestinians in the decades-long conflict, whereas only 9% support Israel. Another poll by YouGov, commissioned by the Council for Arab-British Understanding in July 2026, showed that 67% of Labour voters believe that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.

The British parliament is currently in recess for another few weeks, so no laws have been passed. But in his first statement on foreign policy, Burnham focused on Israel, announcing his intentions to sanction Israeli settlers engaging in violent attacks on Palestinians, and Israeli officials whom he believes enabled them. He also criticized the campaign in Gaza, saying there was “increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed”, and that Labour “didn’t get it right” at the beginning of the most recent conflict, arguing that they were too slow to call for a ceasefire.

Lessons from the past

Under Burnham’s predecessor, Keir Starmer, the party was hemorrhaging support from its left-wing base over their stance on Israel, which they deemed to be too weak on the Jewish state. As a result, a lot of their support flocked to the more openly pro-Palestinian Green Party, who benefitted from an insurgence in the polls as a result.

Starmer was urged to take a stronger stance on Israel, but only within parameters acceptable to him and his more moderate base. That’s why he agreed to recognize a Palestinian state, a gesture that holds no major significance, other than giving him proof that he supports the Palestinian cause. Following criticism of the British military support for Israel, he suspended 30 export licenses, under 10% of total export licenses. The government has made it clear that it is not a full arms embargo, just a partial suspension. This allowed him to toe the line between appeasing the anti-Israel side of his party, while maintaining a good relationship with the country.

These tokenistic gestures are seemingly being carried over into the Burnham administration. Miliband’s statement following the Sa’ar phone call was framed to give as much distance to Israel as they possibly could, while still holding a seemingly productive talk. Even when Burnham spoke about Israeli “war crimes”, he fell short of calling Israel’s actions a ‘genocide’, despite major pressure from his party. This is because he did not want to face the legal and diplomatic ramifications that come with this label, including a cut-off of military and diplomatic cooperation, which is clearly important to him and the UK.

When you strip away all the bravado, the British government wants to have a good relationship with Israel – even when they frame it as the opposite.