标签： Asia

As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to depart Washington for a high-stakes summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday — the first of potentially four scheduled meetings between the two leaders this year — he has struck an upbeat tone about bilateral economic ties, framing the world’s two largest economies as reaping growing mutual benefits from trade while downplaying escalating frictions over rare earth minerals, tit-for-tat tariffs, and cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence.

“We’re doing a lot of business with China and making a lot of money,” Trump told reporters last week. “We’re making a lot of money — it’s different than it used to be.”

The summit’s core agenda centers on preserving stability in the bilateral economic relationship, with analysts and administration officials signaling that only incremental policy announcements are expected. The temporary trade truce reached by the two leaders during an October meeting in South Korea last year is widely projected to be extended, and China is reportedly preparing to unveil new purchase commitments for key U.S. exports including soybeans, beef, and commercial aircraft from Boeing. U.S. officials have also publicly floated the creation of a new bilateral Board of Trade to sustain ongoing dialogue on economic issues.

Brett Fetterly, managing principal at global consultancy The Asia Group who specializes in China policy, notes that many within the Trump administration view stable, continued engagement as a more critical outcome than a sweeping immediate policy deal. “The outcome that matters more than any set of deliverables is stability and space for continued engagement, both to build domestic resilience and to facilitate future deal-making,” Fetterly explained.

Yet even as diplomatic preparations frame the summit as a step toward smoother relations, deep-seated competition continues to shape the bilateral relationship, with multiple flashpoints ranging from lingering tariff disputes to the AI arms race and the ongoing Iran war capable of upending fragile progress. Official trade data also undermines Trump’s optimistic framing of growing U.S. gains from trade with China: U.S. Census Bureau figures show China purchased nearly $50 billion less in American goods last year than it did in 2022, a drop driven in part by Beijing’s pause of soybean purchases during a 2024 flare-up of trade tensions. The Trump administration has made expanding Chinese imports of U.S. goods a core priority to support American farmers and manufacturers and narrow the 2024 bilateral trade deficit, which hit $202 billion.

Wider trade shifts have also reshaped economic ties in recent years: for the first time, the United States now imports more goods from Taiwan than from mainland China, a shift largely driven by surging demand for AI-related semiconductors and server hardware from the self-governing island that Beijing claims as its own. Analysis by Chad Bown, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and co-author of *How to Win a Trade War*, shows China’s share of total U.S. goods imports has plummeted from 22% at the start of Trump’s first term in 2017 to just 7.5% in the first three months of this year, as both sides have rerouted trade through third-party economies and U.S. firms have shifted electronics supply chains to Vietnam and India.

The proposed new bilateral Board of Trade lies at the center of U.S. negotiating priorities for the summit. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng during an April 30 call that the body would focus on facilitating trade in non-sensitive goods — such as agricultural products, but excluding advanced semiconductors and other technology deemed critical to national security — and streamline dispute resolution to help boost U.S. exports to China. The initiative also offers the Trump administration a politically and legally viable alternative to large-scale tariff hikes, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally impose the sweeping 145% tariff increases on Chinese goods he enacted last year, and a federal court recently deemed the replacement temporary tariffs illegal last week.

Administration officials confirmed that both sides will need to secure domestic approval to launch the board, which would oversee tens of billions of dollars in annual trade. The U.S. is also pushing for a parallel bilateral investment forum to facilitate cross-border financing of commercial operations. A 17-member delegation of major U.S. corporate CEOs, including Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, will accompany Trump on the trip, the White House confirmed.

Despite the push for dialogue, fundamental misalignment of priorities between Washington and Beijing threatens to limit progress at the summit. Trump has framed the bilateral trade imbalance as the core issue to resolve, betting that the U.S. can retain its technological lead in artificial intelligence. By contrast, Xi’s administration frames a rapidly shifting global landscape shaped by climate change and the Iran war as an opportunity to expand global market share for Chinese clean energy technologies including solar panels and electric vehicles.

“Washington and Beijing are competing at different levels and different domains, with different theories of victory,” explained Michael Sobolik, senior fellow for U.S.-China relations at the conservative Hudson Institute. “President Trump leveraged tariffs not as a weapon against China but as leverage to secure a trade deal. Xi Jinping is angling to win a cold war with the United States.”

The ongoing U.S.-Israel conflict in Iran has also created a new inflection point in global energy that deepens structural divides, according to Ali Wyne, senior research and advocacy adviser on U.S.-China relations at the International Crisis Group. The Trump administration is betting on continued global reliance on fossil fuels, while China frames recent energy price spikes triggered by Strait of Hormuz shipment disruptions as validation of its long-term strategy to lead the global green energy transition. “The structural frictions between the United States and China, they are growing in number and severity,” Wyne noted.

Beneath the upbeat diplomatic rhetoric ahead of the summit, a host of unresolved flashpoints continue to threaten bilateral stability. These include China’s near-total global dominance of rare earth mining and processing — critical inputs for consumer electronics and clean energy technology — which the Trump administration is working to break through years of new investment and alternative supply chain partnerships. The U.S. also continues to push sweeping restrictions on Chinese access to cutting-edge AI semiconductors produced by U.S. firms including Nvidia and AMD. Other sticking points include China’s growing global dominance as an auto exporter, with Chinese vehicle exports rising 21% last year and Chinese EV manufacturers undercutting global competitors on price. The administration is also pursuing new tariffs on Chinese goods under a 1974 Trade Act national security provision, after earlier tariffs were struck down by the courts, targeting excess industrial capacity and alleged forced labor practices. Most recently, U.S. sanctions on a Chinese oil refinery and dozens of Chinese tankers and shipping firms for transporting Iranian crude have sparked a public backlash from Beijing, which has demanded international actors ignore the penalties, and the two countries are also locked in a dispute over Panama Canal management.

In the days leading up to US President Donald Trump’s first visit to Beijing since 2017, tightened security arrangements around Tiananmen Square have fueled widespread social media speculation of a large-scale organized welcome event, marking the buildup to what is widely regarded as one of the most consequential global leadership summits in recent years. What was once a quiet preparation process is now shaping up to be a defining meeting that could chart the course of US-China relations for the coming decade, with agendas spanning Middle East mediation, cross-strait tensions, trade disputes and cutting-edge technological competition.

For months prior to the visit, the Trump administration had sidelined US-China relations to prioritize other pressing matters: the ongoing conflict with Iran, military operations in the Western Hemisphere, and pressing domestic political and economic concerns. But this week, all attention has shifted to Beijing, where every discussion between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping carries global stakes.

One of the most pressing topics on the agenda is China’s emerging role as a mediator in the three-month-long US-Israel-Iran conflict. Working alongside Pakistan, Beijing put forward a five-point peace plan in March aimed at securing an immediate ceasefire and reopening the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, with Chinese diplomats privately pushing Iranian officials to engage in diplomatic negotiations.

Beijing has strong personal incentives to end the conflict quickly. Already grappling with slowing domestic growth and rising unemployment, China’s export-reliant economy has felt acute pain from the war-driven surge in global oil prices: higher fuel costs have pushed up production costs for petrochemical-dependent sectors from textiles to plastics by as much as 20% for some domestic manufacturers. While China’s own substantial oil reserves and leading position in renewable energy and electric vehicles have buffered it from the worst of the fuel crisis, the conflict still drags on an already sluggish economy.

That said, Beijing is not offering mediation for free. US officials are well aware of China’s influence in Tehran, demonstrated by last week’s high-profile visit of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Beijing. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has openly called on China to pressure Iran, saying: “what you are doing in the Strait is causing you to be globally isolated. You’re the bad guy in this.” Washington has also lobbied Beijing to support a new UN Security Council resolution condemning Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping transiting the Strait, after Russia vetoed an earlier draft.

Ali Wyne, Senior Research and Advocacy Advisor for US-China relations at the International Crisis Group, notes that the US has already acknowledged Beijing’s indispensable role in any long-term diplomatic resolution of the conflict: “I think if we’re going to bring Iran back to the negotiating table in an enduring way, I think that the United States recognises that China is going to play some role.” For his part, Trump has adopted a soft stance on China’s ties to Tehran, downplaying concerns even after Washington sanctioned a Chinese refinery for transporting Iranian oil. “It is what it is, right? We do things, too, against them,” he told reporters recently.

Cross-strait tensions over Taiwan will be another unavoidable core topic of the summit. Last December, the Trump administration’s $11 billion arms sales deal to Taipei drew fierce backlash from Beijing, but Trump himself has sent contradictory signals on US security commitments to the island, which China claims as an inalienable part of its territory. The US president has publicly downplayed US willingness to defend Taiwan, saying that Taiwan does not adequately compensate the US for security guarantees and even imposed a 15% tariff on Taiwanese goods last year, accusing Taipei of stealing US semiconductor manufacturing.

Rubio has confirmed that Taiwan will be on the meeting agenda, but stressed that Washington’s goal is to avoid new tensions between the two superpowers. “We don’t need any destabilising events to occur with regards to Taiwan or anywhere in the Indo-Pacific, and I think that’s to the mutual benefit of both the United States and the Chinese,” he said. For China, Taiwan is a non-negotiable red line: Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently urged the US to make the “right choice” in a call with Rubio, while Beijing has ramped up daily military patrols around the island.

Some analysts speculate that Beijing may push for a revision of the long-standing 1982 US policy wording on Taiwan, seeking to upgrade Washington’s current position of “not supporting Taiwan independence” to a clearer statement of “opposing Taiwan independence.” But John Delury, a senior fellow from the Centre on US-China Relations at the Asia Society, is skeptical of any major breakthrough: “Even if Trump says something kind of left field that looks like some capitulation on Taiwan, because he’s not so careful with his use of language, the Chinese know better than to put much stock in that, because he can reverse it with a Truth Social post a week later.”

Trade, the historic flashpoint of US-China tensions, is also back on the agenda after months of escalating friction. Throughout 2025, the world’s two largest economies teetered on the edge of a full-blown new trade war that would have shaken the global economy: Trump repeatedly adjusted tariffs on Chinese goods, at one point pushing rates above 100%, while Beijing retaliated by cutting rare earth exports to the US and suspending purchases of American agricultural goods, hitting Trump’s key support base of rural farming states.

Tensions have cooled significantly since Trump and Xi met on the sidelines of a conference in South Korea last October, and a recent US Supreme Court ruling limiting the president’s unilateral authority to impose tariffs has also curbed Trump’s more impulsive trade instincts. Still, major disagreements remain: Trump will push for increased Chinese purchases of US agricultural products, while Beijing will demand that Washington scrap a newly launched trade probe into alleged unfair Chinese business practices that would allow Trump to reimpose sweeping high tariffs.

Michael O’Hanlan, Phil Knight Chair in Defense and Strategy at the Brookings Institution, notes that this will be a tough negotiation for Washington: “It could be tough for the US to give up investigations of all unfair Chinese trade practices given how widespread and distorting the latter still are.” According to Reuters, Trump will be accompanied by CEOs from top American firms including Nvidia, Apple, Exxon and Boeing, highlighting the deep business stakes of the visit. While China is less dependent on US trade than it was during Trump’s first term, Beijing still prioritizes global economic stability as it pursues domestic growth, making a smooth meeting a key priority for Xi.

Ryan Hass, Director of the John L Thornton China Centre at the Brookings Institution, summed up the fragile dynamic ahead of the summit: “So long as the visit proceeds smoothly and Trump concludes he was treated respectfully, then the uneasy calm in the bilateral relationship will endure. If, on the other hand, Trump leaves feeling disrespected or trifled with, then he could have a change of heart.”

Beyond geopolitics and trade, the rising competition over cutting-edge technology – particularly artificial intelligence and semiconductors – will be a central theme of the talks. China is currently investing heavily in AI and humanoid robotics, core components of what Xi calls “new productive forces” that Beijing hopes will drive its next phase of economic growth. But many US policymakers accuse China of pursuing policies to co-opt or steal American technology to advance its domestic industries, leading Washington to impose sweeping restrictions on exports of the most advanced microchips to China, despite pushback from US chip manufacturers.

While the recent resolution of the TikTok ownership dispute represented a rare positive breakthrough in a tech relationship long plagued by accusation and mistrust, frictions have reemerged in the fast-growing AI sector. The White House has accused Chinese AI firms of large-scale theft of American AI models, while Beijing has reportedly blocked US firm Meta’s acquisition of Singapore-based Chinese-founded AI startup Manus. Yingyi Ma, a researcher at the John L Thornton China Centre, notes: “An opening chapter of an AI cold war is emerging. The deeper contest is not over who copies whose model, but over the talent capable of building the next generation of frontier AI.”

China has recently showcased its advanced robotic capabilities with humanoid bots performing martial arts and outrunning human runners in Beijing marathons, but analysts point out that while Chinese firms excel at building the mechanical bodies of these systems, they still rely on US-made high-end chips to power the advanced artificial intelligence that operates them. For Beijing, this creates a natural opening for a potential trade: access to China’s dominant position in rare earth minerals – which processes 90% of global supply, critical to everything from smartphones to wind turbines to jet engines – in exchange for relaxed US restrictions on high-end chip exports.

Despite the wide range of high-stakes issues on the agenda, Trump’s Beijing visit will be a condensed two-day whirlwind tour of meetings and official events, including formal talks, a state banquet and a visit to the historic Temple of Heaven. While substantive final agreements may not be reached in such a short time frame, analysts broadly agree that even this brief face-to-face meeting between the leaders of the world’s two largest powers will set the long-term trajectory for bilateral relations and global politics for years to come.

In a high-stakes interview on Al Jazeera’s flagship current affairs program *Al Muqabala*, one of Qatar’s most influential veteran statesmen has laid out a stark assessment of Middle East geopolitics, framing the ongoing conflict with Iran as the culmination of 30 years of Israeli efforts to redraw the region’s map by force.

Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani, who previously served as both Qatari prime minister and foreign minister, outlined how Israeli hardliners led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have worked since the 1990s Bill Clinton administration to pressure Washington into launching a full-scale war against Iran over its nuclear program. For decades, successive U.S. governments — including even the first administration of Donald Trump — resisted calls for an all-out conflict, but Sheikh Hamad says Netanyahu ultimately succeeded in persuading the current U.S. administration to back the campaign by selling a false narrative of quick victory.

“He convinced the U.S. administration that the war would be short and swift, and that the Iranian regime would fall within weeks,” he said, drawing a parallel to flawed U.S. assumptions around regime change in Venezuela. The former diplomat added that Washington’s greatest strategic strength has always lain in its ability to avoid unnecessary military intervention, not in its willingness to deploy force, noting that Netanyahu stands as the primary beneficiary of the conflict, using it to advance his long-held goal of expanding Israeli territory to form a “Greater Israel”.

Since the U.S.-Israeli campaign launched on February 28, Iran has retaliated with strikes targeting Gulf nations including Qatar, as well as U.S. military bases, critical energy infrastructure, and civilian sites across the region. Sheikh Hamad explicitly condemned Iran’s attacks on civilian, industrial and energy facilities, while acknowledging that Gulf states have repeatedly voiced opposition to the current conflict. Despite widespread outrage over the strikes, he argued that geographic proximity makes long-term coexistence with Iran unavoidable, requiring sustained dialogue between Gulf governments and Tehran.

Most notably, Sheikh Hamad argued that internal disunity among Gulf nations poses a greater threat to regional stability than Iran, Israel, or foreign military presences in the region. To counter this risk, he called for the urgent establishment of a unified “Gulf NATO”, a cohesive security bloc anchored by Saudi Arabia that brings together strategically aligned Gulf states.

He explained that while the U.S. security umbrella has provided regional deterrence for decades, Washington’s growing strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific and its focus on countering China means Gulf nations can no longer rely indefinitely on American protection. Instead, he argued the bloc should pursue deep strategic partnerships with key regional powers including Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt.

Turning to the ongoing crisis in Gaza, Sheikh Hamad condemned what he called Israel’s genocidal war in the enclave, revealing that intelligence indicates Israel is deliberately plotting to depopulate Gaza by encouraging Palestinian residents to leave. He stressed that any negotiations on the disarmament of Hamas must be tied to a clear political roadmap leading to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. He also praised Saudi Arabia’s decision to reject normalization of relations with Israel until such a plan is in place, noting that this principled stand has upended Netanyahu’s long-term strategic calculations.

A high-profile terrorism case against a British-Palestinian activist has ended in a hung jury, forcing the court to schedule a full retrial scheduled for late 2027.

Majid Freeman, 38, also known by the alias Majid Novsarka and based in Leicester, stood trial for two weeks at Birmingham Crown Court, answering to charges tied to social media posts he published on X and Instagram between 2023 and 2024. Prosecutors accused Freeman of two key offenses: intentionally encouraging terrorist activity and publicly backing Hamas, the Palestinian militant group classified as a proscribed terrorist organization by the UK government. Freeman has repeatedly denied all allegations throughout legal proceedings.

After more than 13 and a half hours of closed deliberations, the jury notified the judge that they could not reach a required majority verdict on any of the charges brought against the activist. This deadlock automatically triggers the scheduling of a new trial, which is set to open in September 2027 and run for four weeks.

Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse following the jury’s announcement, Freeman said he welcomed the retrial, framing it as a new chance to bring evidence of Israeli military actions in Gaza before a British civilian jury. He criticized the prosecution’s case, noting that the Crown had spent significant public resources to pursue charges rooted in social media content including emojis, Islamic prayers (duas), and public posts. “After almost a week of deliberation, the jury could not agree that I was guilty. They could not agree,” Freeman emphasized.

The prosecution, led by senior barrister Tom Williams KC, argued during the trial that Freeman leveraged his social media platforms to promote and incite violent acts. Prosecutors pointed to specific content on Freeman’s accounts, including a 2024 reposted video from independent outlet Middle East Eye that showed an Israeli soldier shooting an elderly Palestinian woman in Gaza. They also claimed Freeman used visual symbols, including a red triangle, that prosecutors allege are associated with Hamas, and that his posts consistently amplified the group’s messaging. Prosecutors branded Freeman an “effective propagandist” who used short-form videos and casual messaging to humanize Hamas and build long-term public support for the organization in the UK.

In his testimony to the court, Freeman clarified his position, drawing a distinction between backing Hamas as a political organization and supporting the right of armed resistance to occupation. “I do not support Hamas as a group,” Freeman told the jury. “I believe that not just Hamas, but every group has the right to defend themselves against Israeli aggression. That includes using force.”

Freeman’s defense team, led by Hossein Zahir KC, pushed back aggressively against the prosecution’s claims. The defense argued that Freeman does not support Hamas as an organization, and instead advocates broadly for what he terms Palestinian resistance. Zahir urged jurors to contextualize Freeman’s social media posts against the backdrop of the ongoing Israel-Gaza war, which the defense described as a genocide against Palestinian civilians. The defense noted that Freeman’s use of the hashtag #GazaResists reflected his focus on the broader Palestinian cause rather than endorsement of any specific proscribed group. “Social media is fast-moving and often harsh, but his intention was to raise awareness, not to incite violence,” the defense told the court.

This is not the first high-profile legal case Freeman has faced in recent years. Earlier in 2024, an English court acquitted Freeman on charges connected to 2022 intercommunal riots between Hindu and Muslim youth in Leicester. In that case, police had alleged Freeman pushed an officer, used abusive language toward law enforcement, and incited violent confrontation during the unrest.

This case, which centers on the boundaries of free speech for activists criticizing Israeli policy in Gaza, has underscored the growing legal tensions in the UK between counter-terrorism prosecutions and the right to advocate for Palestinian causes amid the ongoing war.

On a Monday press briefing, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei pushed back against former U.S. President Donald Trump’s outright rejection of Tehran’s counter-proposal for a nuclear and regional peace agreement, defending the initiative as a reasonable and good-faith effort to de-escalate long-standing tensions. “The only thing we have demanded is Iran’s legitimate rights,” Baghaei stated, countering accusations of Iranian intransigence by accusing Washington of clinging to a set of non-negotiable unreasonable demands that have stalled progress toward a diplomatic resolution.

Trump’s rejection came via a public social media post over the weekend, where he dismissed Iran’s counteroffer to Washington’s latest proposal as “totally unacceptable” and added “I don’t like it,” offering no specific details about which provisions he found objectionable. The abrupt, vague dismissal immediately roiled global energy markets, driving crude oil prices sharply higher as investors priced in heightened risk of a wider regional conflict.

While full text of both the U.S. proposal and Iran’s counterproposal remain confidential, think tank expert Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, outlined leaked key concessions Iran has put forward that represent a significant shift from Tehran’s earlier negotiating positions. According to Parsi’s analysis, Iran has compromised on two of the most contentious sticking points in the talks: uranium stockpiles and long-term enrichment limits.

Previously, Tehran refused to ship any of its existing uranium stockpile outside of the country, only agreeing to dilute the material to lower-grade, non-weapons grade. Under the new proposal, Parsi says Iran has offered to downblend a portion of its stockpile and send the remainder to a neutral third party for storage. On enrichment, Iran has also agreed to a 12-year moratorium on all domestic uranium enrichment — a major compromise that falls between Trump’s original demand for a 15- to 20-year pause and Tehran’s initial offer of just three to five years.

“That Iran is willing to pause enrichment at all is a significant concession that I am not sure is fully appreciated by the American side,” Parsi noted in his analysis. He questioned why Trump has hardened Washington’s negotiating position beyond its original core red line of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, suggesting the shift is driven by pressure from U.S. ally Israel. “The insistence on shipping the entire stockpile out appears to be another example of Trump allowing America’s red lines to be replaced by Israel’s,” Parsi wrote. “It would be a shame if the entire negotiation collapses over this issue.”

Trump confirmed over the weekend that he had spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran’s proposal, calling the conversation “very nice” and noting the two leaders maintain a “good relationship.”

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency, citing an anonymous informed source, further clarified the key terms of Tehran’s proposal on Monday. The document prioritizes an immediate end to ongoing hostilities, ironclad international guarantees against future U.S. aggression, the full lifting of crippling U.S. economic sanctions on Iran, and an immediate end to the U.S.-led naval blockade of Iran once an initial preliminary agreement is signed. It also reaffirms Iran’s sovereign authority over the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global energy chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supplies pass — contingent on Washington fulfilling its commitments under the deal. The proposal also includes provisions for advancing regional security and guaranteeing safe commercial passage through the strait.

Baghaei pushed back hard against narratives framing Iran as the unreasonable party to the negotiations, pointing to Washington’s history of aggressive action in the region to counter the claim. “It is enough to look at Iran’s record,” he said. “Were we the ones who deployed troops? Are we the ones bullying countries in the Western Hemisphere? Were we the ones who committed assassinations twice during negotiations?” He also defended Tehran’s core asks, asking: “Is our proposal for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz unreasonable? Is establishing peace and security across the entire region irresponsible?”

Just two years after securing a landslide general election victory, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself trapped in an existential battle for his political future, triggered by catastrophic, unexpected losses for the Labour Party in last week’s local elections. This challenge to his leadership has been months in the making: earlier this year, Starmer already nearly fell from power following the Peter Mandelson scandal, when damning connections between the now-former US ambassador, a close Starmer ally, and convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein came to light. Back then, internal Labour sources confirm, party figures opted to hold off on a leadership challenge solely to avoid upheaval ahead of the local elections, allowing Starmer to cling to his position. Today, that reprieve is over, and Starmer is surrounded by potential successors ready to step in if he steps down or is forced out. Whitehall insiders name four leading contenders for the top job: Health Secretary Wes Streeting, former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. What is most notable about this unfolding leadership crisis is its likely ripple effect on British foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel — a topic that has dominated UK political discourse for more than two years amid Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the recent economic shocks stemming from the US-Israeli war on Iran. Leading pollster Sir John Curtis has confirmed that the Green Party, the most prominent UK political voice opposing British support for Israel, inflicted far more damage on Labour’s local election vote share than right-wing challenger Reform UK. With left-wing and progressive voters abandoning Labour in droves over its Israel policy, any new leader will be forced to shift course to win back disaffected voters and undercut the Green Party’s growing momentum. That shift would almost certainly mean a far firmer stance against documented Israeli war crimes, analysts say. Of the four main contenders, Andy Burnham has staked out the most distinct position on Israel, diverging sharply from Starmer’s pro-Israeli stance over the last two years. A popular soft-left figure within Labour, Burnham’s history on the issue is layered: he voted for the 2003 UK invasion of Iraq under Tony Blair, joined the pro-Israel lobby group Labour Friends of Israel in 2015, and during that year’s Labour leadership campaign described the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as “spiteful”, called Israel a “democracy with a long history of protecting minorities”, and argued the Balfour Declaration should be celebrated in UK schools as an example of British values. But even in his early career, Burnham positioned himself as a critic of hardline Israeli government policy. A little-documented 2012 trip to the occupied West Bank with the pro-Palestine group Labour Friends of Palestine foreshadowed his later shift. After Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2015 re-election, he called the result “depressing” on social media, noting Netanyahu had run on a pledge to expand illegal settlements and arguing the Palestinian people would need increased international support. That same year, he told the Palestine Solidarity Campaign he backed full recognition of Palestinian statehood as a right, not a gift, called for an end to Israeli occupation and illegal settlement expansion, and condemned Hamas rocket and terror attacks. In the wake of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent siege and bombardment of Gaza, Burnham openly broke with Starmer’s approach. While the then-opposition Labour Party aligned with the Conservative government to give Israel unqualified support — with Starmer infamously backing Israel’s “right” to cut off all power and water to Gaza’s 2 million Palestinian civilians — Burnham released a statement just two days later that drew a clear line between himself and his leader. He condemned Hamas’ attacks but only backed Israel’s right to self-defense “in line with international law”, explicitly ruling out carte blanche for Israel and calling for urgent humanitarian access to Gaza. As the Palestinian death toll climbed into the thousands, Burnham went even further, joining London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar in breaking ranks to call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, at a time when Starmer was still pressuring rebel MPs to fall in line. In a column explaining his decision, he warned Starmer against labeling dissenting MPs as disloyal, argued Israel’s response to 7 October had to be targeted to avoid being seen as disproportionate and indiscriminate, and publicly recanted his 2003 vote for the Iraq War, acknowledging the US-led invasion had caused massive harm to innocent civilians and fueled terrorist recruitment rather than rooting out extremism. This positioning paid off electorally in 2024: while Labour lost a third of its vote share in UK areas with majority Muslim populations, Burnham comfortably retained his Greater Manchester mayoral post, just as Khan held London despite both having large Muslim constituencies. Over the following two years, Burnham continued to push the Starmer government for bolder action on Palestine, joining a group of senior Labour figures in June 2025 to urge immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood, noting the UK’s historic role in carving up the Middle East via the Sykes-Picot agreement created a moral obligation to endorse Palestinian self-determination. The Starmer government ultimately granted recognition that September. Burnham also remains a prominent supporter of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, which organizes parliamentary trips to the occupied Palestinian territories. His stance puts him sharply at odds with the other three leading contenders, all of whom have largely stuck to Labour’s official pro-Israel line on Gaza. While Ed Miliband, a figure seen as more left-leaning on foreign policy, privately opposed British participation in the recent US-Israeli war on Iran before it launched, he has not broken with the party’s public stance. For his part, Wes Streeting — who narrowly held his seat in 2024 against a challenge from British Palestinian independent candidate Leanne Mohamad — privately acknowledged earlier this year that Israel was “committing war crimes before our eyes” and accused Israel of “rogue state behavior” in leaked text messages with disgraced former ambassador Mandelson, but he has yet to repeat these claims publicly or push for concrete action such as sanctions. Even under Starmer, UK-Israel diplomatic relations have been strained, with London imposing a partial arms embargo on Israel, but the British government has continued deep military and political collaboration with Israel throughout its campaign in Gaza. If Starmer departs, analysts agree that any replacement will face overwhelming electoral pressure to ramp up criticism of Israel, and the UK government could finally move forward with sanctions on goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Burnham’s path to the premiership does face significant barriers: as a sitting mayor, he would first need to secure a parliamentary seat to be eligible for the Labour leadership. Even so, he remains the candidate most likely to pull Labour back to its traditional center-left roots if he clears those hurdles. Regardless of which candidate ultimately prevails, all contenders will be forced to take a public stance on Starmer’s handling of the Gaza conflict, and a fundamental shift in British foreign policy is all but guaranteed in the coming months.