Ed Miliband (Image: Getty)
Britain has long enjoyed a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, and throughout the history of that bond, we have called upon more times than we might care to admit.
It is what keeps us safe, and there are undoubtedly aspects of it which never see the light of day – the trade of information between partners that foils and frustrates the enemies of freedom.
Get the latest news from around the world and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
In an ever more dangerous world, where Britain and her allies feel more diminished and alone, jeopardising such relationships cannot be considered wise.
For a Foreign Secretary, the difficulties of the job are extraordinary, but the task itself is perhaps relatively simple. Do not ruin the special relationship with our closest and most powerful ally.
Yet just a few months into the job, that is what Ed Miliband runs the risk of doing, the blundering former net zero cheerleader seemingly hell-bent on wreaking havoc on our network of alliances.
He has, it seems, already slapped our allies in the face – but it will be Donald Trump that is truly raging in the White House.
Few can deny that the news coming from the Middle East is a cause of great concern, that the devastation we see and the cost of human life is a stain on all our shared conscience.
But no matter one’s views on the actions Mr Miliband has taken – imposing sanctions – the backlash could be disastrous.
For Andy Burnham and Mr Miliband, they must surely now see that being in charge is not the same as fixing some bus routes and building a couple of windmills.
They’re in the big leagues now. Actions have consequences, and countries always act in their own interests.
Failing to consider those interests is an act of foolishness, which Mr Miliband appears to be an expert in.
Not only does the United States President, the commonly quick-to-anger Donald Trump, face midterm elections in a matter of months, but so too does he have a list of reasons to dislike the UK.
President Trump (Image: Getty)
First, there was a lack of support for Iran, alongside rhetoric targeting him from the MPs who conspired to put Andy Burnham on the throne.
And now there is a more pliable premier, Javier Milei, in Argentina, champing at the bit to placate his populace and seize the Falklands, a claim supported now by some in Israel.
We must ask ourselves – what is in Trump’s interest? Being nice to Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband, and a country that has been reticent in its desire to support the US.
Or looking the other way when Mr Milei acts on his desire to expand his territory, making Mr Trump appear stronger at home, and placating his Israeli allies in the process.
Perhaps for us the answer is obvious, but as ever, the minds of Downing Street seem to operate on a different level, detached from reality.
So sadly, we shall have to wait, watch, and see them make the wrong decision.
Ed Miliband just dug a hole for Britain – and Donald Trump will be truly raging
Ed Miliband has found himself at the centre of a major diplomatic dispute after Britain’s government introduced new measures targeting Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
The decision has generated fierce criticism from Israel and raised questions about Britain’s relationship with the United States. With Prime Minister Andy Burnham due to meet Donald Trump in New York this week, the timing has made the issue particularly sensitive.
The headline claim that Miliband has “dug a hole for Britain” and that Trump will be “truly raging” reflects the political controversy surrounding the decision. However, the available evidence presents a more complicated picture. Trump did question Britain’s decision and said he wanted to speak to Israel about it, but reporting from Axios indicated that the Trump administration had not opposed the British-led initiative before it was announced.
That distinction matters as Burnham attempts to establish a working relationship with the US president.
What did Britain actually announce?
On September 8, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced a series of measures aimed at Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.
The package includes a ban on imports of goods produced in Israeli settlements, new powers to target individuals and companies that support or profit from settlement activity, restrictions on advertising or promoting property in settlements, and additional sanctions against individuals accused of involvement in serious violations of international humanitarian law.
The British government says the measures are designed to protect the possibility of a two-state solution.
Miliband argued that settlement expansion and violence in the West Bank were making a negotiated settlement increasingly difficult. The government has also pointed to the proposed E1 development area as a particular concern because of its potential implications for Palestinian territorial continuity.
The policy was introduced as part of coordinated action involving Britain, France and Canada. A total of 12 countries endorsed or were considering restrictions on trade connected with Israeli settlements.
Why Trump matters
The timing could hardly be more politically significant.
Burnham is in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and is expected to meet Trump for the first time since becoming prime minister. Reuters reported that the British leader intends to pursue British interests while maintaining the wider US-UK relationship, even when the two governments disagree.
The settlement sanctions are one of the clearest areas where the two countries could potentially diverge.
Trump has historically maintained a close relationship with the Israeli government, while his administration has frequently placed strong emphasis on Israel’s security.
Yet the current evidence does not support the simple claim that Trump has launched a major confrontation with Britain over the sanctions.
According to Axios, US officials and Western diplomats said the Trump administration did not oppose the UK-led effort before the measures were announced. The initiative was joined by 11 other Western countries.
Trump nevertheless questioned the move publicly.
When asked about the British ban, he said he had only just seen it and wanted to speak to Israel to understand its position. He also questioned why the action had suddenly taken place.
That response leaves room for several interpretations, but it does not amount to an explicit US rejection of Britain’s policy.
Rubio takes a cautious position
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also taken a careful approach.
Rather than endorsing Britain’s sanctions, Rubio has focused on the broader objective of stability in the Middle East. The Guardian reported that Washington did not oppose Britain’s action and that discussions between Trump and Burnham had taken place before the announcement.
That creates an unusual diplomatic situation.
Britain has moved further than the United States in imposing specific trade restrictions, but Washington has not responded with the kind of direct confrontation that some observers anticipated.
For Burnham, that could provide some diplomatic breathing room ahead of his meeting with Trump.
For Miliband, however, the situation remains politically sensitive because the policy has produced a serious confrontation with Israel.
Israel’s response
Israel has reacted strongly to Britain’s measures.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar described the British accusations as “outrageous lies” and criticised the government’s decision to target settlement activity.
Israel subsequently announced several measures against Britain, including plans to close the British consulate in Jerusalem within 30 days. British representatives were also removed from an international Gaza coordination centre, while Israel said it would end British training for Palestinian Authority police.
Israel also announced entry restrictions against 11 British MPs and another British national.
The Israeli government said those targeted were involved in what it characterised as antisemitic or anti-Israel activity or denied Israel’s existence. Those are claims made by the Israeli government and should not be treated as independently established findings.
The diplomatic consequences are nevertheless significant.
Britain has not severed relations with Israel. Its embassy in Tel Aviv remains open. But closing the Jerusalem consulate would have practical consequences because the consulate covers British diplomatic and consular work involving Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
Miliband’s defence
Miliband has defended the measures as a response to what the government describes as deteriorating conditions in the West Bank.
He has argued that Britain’s dispute is with the conduct of the Israeli government rather than with Israel’s population.
The Foreign Secretary has also explicitly warned against treating British Jews as responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, describing such behaviour as antisemitic.
His broader argument is that Britain has a strategic interest in preserving the possibility of a two-state settlement.
Miliband has said the government believes both Israelis and Palestinians should be able to live with security, freedom and self-determination.
The policy is therefore being presented not simply as punishment but as an attempt to influence the political conditions surrounding a future settlement.
Critics see risks
The government nevertheless faces criticism over the consequences of the policy.
Some critics argue that Britain risks damaging an important relationship with Israel without having enough influence to change its government’s behaviour.
Others question whether trade restrictions on settlement goods can materially alter the broader conflict.
There is also disagreement over the scope of the measures.
In September, more than 130 legal experts, including 18 King’s Counsel, argued that Britain’s sanctions did not go far enough. They called for wider restrictions covering areas including services, insurance and digital infrastructure connected with the occupation.
This demonstrates how divided the debate has become.
Some critics regard the government’s approach as too aggressive, while other legal commentators argue that Britain has not gone far enough to meet its obligations under international law.
The international-law argument
The British government’s position draws heavily on the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.
The ICJ concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful and addressed the responsibilities of other states in relation to the situation.
The British government has used that legal background to justify its decision to expand sanctions and restrict trade connected with Israeli settlements.
Israel disputes the characterisation of the West Bank used by Britain and maintains that the territory’s final status should be resolved through negotiations.
This disagreement is at the heart of the diplomatic dispute.
Britain sees settlement expansion as an obstacle to a two-state solution. Israel argues that questions concerning the territory must ultimately be addressed through political negotiations and rejects the way Britain has characterised its policies.
What does this mean for Burnham and Trump?
The timing makes the dispute especially relevant to Burnham’s first meeting with Trump.
Reuters reported that Burnham intends to pursue a pragmatic relationship with Washington while remaining willing to disagree with Trump where he believes British interests require it. He is also seeking American support for Ukraine’s air defences.
The settlement issue could therefore become one of several difficult subjects during their meeting.
Other areas of potential disagreement include energy policy, Ukraine, Northern Ireland, the Falkland Islands and Britain’s approach to regulation.
Yet the relationship between the two countries extends far beyond any individual disagreement.
Britain and the United States remain closely connected through defence, intelligence, trade, diplomacy and NATO.
For Burnham, the challenge is therefore to demonstrate that Britain can pursue an independent foreign policy without undermining practical cooperation with Washington.
Has Miliband really created a crisis with Trump?
The evidence so far does not establish that.
Trump has questioned the British decision, and the US administration has not endorsed the sanctions. But Washington also did not block the initiative, according to reporting from Axios.
That means the headline’s suggestion of a furious presidential backlash goes beyond what has been publicly demonstrated.
The more immediate diplomatic confrontation has actually been between Britain and Israel.
For Miliband, the consequences are already clear: Israel has retaliated diplomatically, Britain is facing criticism from opponents of the policy, and the government must now implement the new sanctions while explaining their purpose.
For Burnham, the challenge is slightly different.
He must meet Trump at a moment when Britain is taking a position that Washington has chosen not to adopt but has so far stopped short of directly opposing.
A difficult balancing act
Britain’s decision has therefore created a significant foreign-policy test.
Miliband is arguing that settlement expansion threatens the possibility of peace and that Britain must take concrete action rather than simply issue statements.
Israel strongly rejects that approach and has responded with diplomatic measures of its own.
The United States is watching closely but, at least so far, has not responded with the sweeping confrontation suggested by some political commentary.
That leaves Burnham with a delicate balancing act.
He must defend his government’s position while making clear that Britain still values the relationship with Washington. At the same time, he will want American cooperation on Ukraine and other areas where British and US interests overlap.
The meeting between Burnham and Trump will therefore be significant, but it should not be viewed solely through the lens of the Miliband sanctions.
The bigger question is whether Britain can maintain close cooperation with the United States while pursuing a more independent position on contentious international issues.
For now, the facts suggest a complicated picture rather than a simple diplomatic crisis. Miliband has certainly taken a consequential step, Israel has reacted forcefully, and Trump has expressed questions about the timing and rationale.
But the White House did not prevent the British initiative, and there has been no evidence of a complete breakdown in the UK-US relationship.
The real test will come in the weeks and months ahead, as Britain implements the sanctions and Burnham attempts to build a practical working relationship with Trump while defending the government’s position on Israel and the West Bank.