Burnham should now brace for Trump’s fury

Even before Ed Miliband took to his feet in the House of Commons to announce the UK government’s decision to restrict trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, the Foreign Secretary will have known that the issue is going to drive a major wedge between No 10 and the White House. As early as last weekend, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, accused Andy Burnham’s government of “Jew hate” that “knows no boundaries and knows no facts”. (The ambassador now claims that he knew Miliband is Jewish when he made the incendiary comment). In the hours leading up to Miliband’s official pronouncement, Huckabee went even further, telling the BBC that there would “without a doubt” be a reaction from Washington to Burnham’s decision. “Something like this with a partner, Israel” would have a “huge economic impact on British businesses”, he warned. Shorts “It’s a discrimination against the Israeli government. It’s a discrimination against the Jewish people…it’s like throwing a stone and not having an idea of where it’s going to land.” But he went on to indicate exactly what ripples could follow, predicting Israeli reprisals that could bar the UK from purchasing Israeli-made pharmaceuticals that are widely used in Britain, and the possibility of British businesses even being banned from trading with Florida. Although the latter, of course, would wreak enormous harm on Florida, Donald Trump‘s home state, too. Randy Fine, a Republican with a history of making Islamophobic remarks, who represents Florida’s 6th congressional district in the House of Representatives, warned on Monday that the UK’s “vanity project in support of Muslim terror could cost them billions of dollars” in lost trade with the Sunshine State under anti-boycott laws. Two far-right Israeli cabinet ministers – already sanctioned by Britain over incitement of violence against Palestinians – have threatened Britain with recognising Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands Islands, claiming they had been violently stolen by Britain. Itamar Ben-Gvir accused the UK of stealing money from Argentina through oil drilling, and urged Netanyahu to impose sanctions. Meanwhile Bezalel Smotrich called for the expulsion of the British ambassador. “We will not be a doormat trampled by an antisemitic government,” he wrote on X. Trump has already suggested he could rethink neutrality on Britain’s sovereignty of the Falklands, suggesting last week he might not come to Britain’s aid in a potential territorial dispute. US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said there would ‘without a doubt’ be a reaction from Washington to Burnham’s decision (Photo: Issam Rimawi/Getty) Trump may easily have suggested similarly in his conversation on Monday with Burnham. While the official No 10 readout of their call claims that the Prime Minister merely “set out the UK’s commitment to working towards peace and security in the region, stressing the importance of the Two-State Solution”, Burnham reportedly warned Trump of his decision to bar trade with the Israeli settlers. After that call, Bloomberg News reported that No 10 started taking steps to portray the government’s decision as “largely symbolic” and not intended to have a “material impact on the UK’s wider relationship with Israel on trade and security”. The effort may also have been designed to blunt any American response, with every expectation that Trump will vent his fury publicly as soon as microphones are dangled in front of him on Tuesday. Of course, Trump himself may actually be less than bothered by UK sanctions over the West Bank. Last year he said the United States and Israel did not agree “100 per cent” on the West Bank, when asked if he was concerned about Israeli settler violence. He has shown far more interest in Britain’s policies on the North Sea, free speech, online safety restrictions, and migration rather than anything to do with Israel. Yet others in his administration who hold stronger, pro-Israel views on the topic could still make life difficult for Britain. Even before his first face-to-face meeting with Trump, Burnham’s move places him on a collision course with the US leader. It comes at a moment when US officials have already supplied Nato member states with a questionnaire they are required to complete so that Washington can check their degree of public support for Trump’s foreign policy priorities. That move, part of a six-month Pentagon review of US troop presence in Europe, is widely being seen as a loyalty test for Trump’s allies, as the Pentagon checks their “alignment” with the US President’s global vision. While Trump’s relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, has been rocky, especially since the two countries launched their fruitless war on Iran on 28 February, the US government remains committed to seeing the Israeli Prime Minister retain power after Israel’s election next month. Burnham has failed, so far, to deliver on either of Trump’s two major requirements for any UK government: opening up the North Sea for unrestricted fresh drilling for oil and gas and closing Britain’s borders entirely to asylum seekers and other migrants. However, the Prime Minister is expected to approve new drilling at the controversial Jackdaw gas field off the Scottish coast. Burnham can easily point out an extraordinary degree of hypocrisy at the heart of the American government’s response to London’s announcement on the West Bank, because even while Huckabee was accusing Burnham and Miliband of “Jew hate”, he was delivering a very different message in an interview with The Jerusalem Post published on Monday. “They’re not settlers. They’re unsettlers…doing things that are intentionally disruptive”, he said of Jews in the occupied West Bank who are increasingly besieging Palestinian villages, attacking their Palestinian neighbours, and launching violent assaults on Israeli, Palestinian and international news crews who have been reporting the growing violence in recent weeks. “We’ve certainly been very vocal in expressing concerns to the Israeli government”, said Huckabee. “If you want more good behaviour, reward the good behaviour. If you want less bad behaviour, put consequences on it”, he said, without any apparent hint of irony.