Badenoch blurts out the truth: Britain is at the heart of Gaza 'proxy war'

Middle East Eye

2 days ago

If you have spent the past 20 months wondering why British leaders on both sides of the aisle have barely criticised Israel, even as it slaughtered and starved Gaza's population of more than two million people, you finally got an answer last week.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the quiet part out loud. She told Sky: 'Israel is fighting a proxy war [in Gaza] on behalf of the UK.'
According to Badenoch, the UK - and presumably in her assessment, other western powers - aren't just supporting Israel against Hamas. They are willing that fight and helping to direct it. They view that fight as centrally important to their national interests.
This certainly accords with what we have witnessed over more than a year and a half. Both the current Labour government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and its Tory predecessor under Rishi Sunak, have been unwavering in their commitment to send British arms to Israel, while also shipping weapons from the United States and Germany to help with the slaughter.
Both governments used the Royal Air Force base Akrotiri in Cyprus to carry out surveillance flights to aid Israel with locating targets to hit in Gaza. Both allowed British citizens to travel to Israel to take part as soldiers in the Gaza genocide.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Neither government joined South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice, which found more than a year ago that Israel's actions could 'plausibly' be considered a genocide.
And neither government proposed or tried to impose a no-fly zone alongside other western states, as happened in other recent 'wars', to stop Israel's murderous assault on Gaza, or organised with others to break Israel's blockade and get aid into the enclave.
In other words, both governments steadfastly maintained their material support for Israel, even if Starmer recently toned down rhetorical support after images of emaciated babies and young children in Gaza - reminiscent of images of Jewish children in Nazi death camps like Auschwitz - shocked the world.
Coded language
If Badenoch is right that the UK is waging a proxy war in Gaza, it means that both British governments are directly responsible for the huge death toll of Palestinian civilians - running into many tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands - from Israel's saturation bombing and total siege.
It also makes it indisputable that the UK is complicit in the current mass starvation of more than two million people there, which is indeed what Badenoch went on to imply in the coded language of political debate.
Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war
In reference to Starmer's recent, and very belated, criticism of Israel's starvation of Gaza's entire population, she observed: 'What I want to see is Keir Starmer making sure that he is on the right side of British national interest.'
According to Badenoch, Starmer's implied threat - so far entirely unrealised - to limit the UK's active collusion in the genocidal starvation of the people of Gaza could harm Britain's national interests. How exactly?
Her comments should have startled, or at least baffled, Sky interviewer Trevor Phillips. But they passed unremarked.
This sentiment actually informs much thinking in western foreign policy circles, even if she broke the taboo on articulating it publicly
Badenoch's 'proxy war' statement was also largely ignored by the rest of the British establishment media. Right-wing publications did notice it, but it appeared they were only disturbed by her equating the West's proxy war in Gaza with the West's proxy war in Ukraine.
Or as the opposition leader put it: 'Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the UK just like Ukraine is on behalf of western Europe against Russia.'
A column in the Spectator, the Tory party's house journal, criticised her use of 'proxy war' to describe Ukraine, but appeared to take the Gaza proxy war reference as read. James Heale, the Spectator's deputy political editor, wrote: 'By inadvertently echoing Russia's position on Ukraine, Badenoch has handed her opponents another stick with which to beat her.'
The Telegraph, another Tory-leaning newspaper, ran a similarly themed article headlined: 'Kremlin seizes on Badenoch's Ukraine 'proxy war' comments.'
Related wars
The lack of a response to her Gaza 'proxy war' remark suggests that this sentiment actually informs much thinking in western foreign policy circles, even if she broke the taboo on articulating it publicly.
To reach an answer on why Gaza is viewed as a proxy war - one Britain continues to be deeply invested in, even at the cost of a genocide - one must also understand why Ukraine is seen in similar terms. The two 'wars' are more related than they might appear.
Despite the consternation of the Spectator and Telegraph, Badenoch is not the first British leader to point out that the West is fighting a proxy war in Ukraine.
Back in February, one of her predecessors, Boris Johnson, observed of western involvement in the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine: 'Let's face it, we're waging a proxy war. We're waging a proxy war. But we're not giving our proxies [Ukraine] the ability to do the job.'
If anyone should know the truth about Ukraine, it is Johnson. After all, he was prime minister when Moscow invaded its neighbour in February 2022.
He was soon dispatched by Washington to Kyiv, where he appears to have strong-armed President Volodymyr Zelensky into abandoning ceasefire talks that were well advanced and could have led to a resolution.
Offensive frontiers
There are good reasons why Johnson and Badenoch each understand Ukraine as a proxy war. This weekend Keith Kellogg, Donald Trump's envoy to Ukraine, echoed them. He told Fox News that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not wrong to see Ukraine as a proxy war, and that the West was acting as aggressor by supplying Kyiv with weapons.
For years, the West had expanded Nato's offensive frontiers towards Russia, despite Moscow's explicit warnings that this would cross a red line.
With the West threatening to bring Russia's neighbour Ukraine into Nato's military fold, there were only ever likely to be one of two Russian responses. Either Putin would blink first and find Russia boxed in militarily, with Nato missiles - potentially nuclear-tipped - on his doorstep, minutes from Moscow. Or he would react pre-emptively to stop Ukraine's accession to Nato by invading.
Is there no Israeli crime horrific enough to shatter UK Tory support? Read More »
The West believed it had nothing to lose either way. If Russia invaded, Nato would then have the pretext to use Ukraine as a theatre of war to bleed Moscow, both economically with sanctions and militarily by flooding the battlefield with western weapons.
As we now know, Moscow chose to invade. And while it has indeed been bleeding heavily, Ukrainian forces and European economies have been haemorrhaging even faster and more heavily.
The problem isn't so much a lack of weapons - the West has supplied lots of them - as the fact that Ukraine has run out of conscripts willing to be sent into the maw of war.
The West is not, of course, going to send its own soldiers. A proxy war means someone else, in this case Ukrainians, does the fighting - and dying - for you.
Three years on, the conditions for a ceasefire have dramatically changed too. Having spilled so much of its own people's blood, Russia is much less ready to make compromises, not least over the eastern territories it has conquered and annexed.
We have reached this nadir in Ukraine - one so deep that even US President Donald Trump appears ready to bail out - precisely because Nato, via Johnson, pushed Ukraine to keep fighting an unwinnable war.
Full-spectrum dominance
Nonetheless, there was a geopolitical logic, however twisted, to the West's actions in Ukraine. Bleeding Russia, a military and economic power, accords with the hawkish priorities of the neoconservative cabals that run western capitals nowadays, whichever party is in charge.
The neoconservatives valorise what used to be called the military-industrial complex. They believe that the West has a civilisational superiority to the rest of the world, and must use its superior arsenal to defeat, or at least contain, any state that refuses to submit.
This is a modern reimagining of the 'barbarians at the gate', or as neoconservatives like to frame it, 'a clash of civilisations'. The fall of the West would amount, in their view, to a return to the Dark Ages. We are supposedly in a life-or-death struggle.
Arming Israel is seen as no different from arming Ukraine to weaken Russian influence in eastern Europe
In the US, the imperial hub of what we call 'the West', this has justified a massive investment in war industries - or what is referred to as 'defence', because it is an easier sell to domestic publics tired of the endless austerity required to maintain military superiority.
Western capitals profess to act as 'global police', while the rest of the world sees the West more in terms of a sociopathic mafia don. However one frames it, the Pentagon is officially pursuing a doctrine known as US 'global full-spectrum dominance'. You must submit - that is, let us control the world's resources - or pay the price.
In practice, a 'foreign policy' like this has necessarily divided the world in two: those in the Godfather's camp, and those outside it.
If Russia could not be contained and defanged by turning Ukraine into a Nato forward base on Moscow's doorstep, it had to be dragged by the West into a debilitating proxy war that would neutralise Russia's ability to ally with China against US global hegemony.
Acts of violence
That is what Badenoch and Johnson meant by the proxy war in Ukraine. But how is Israel's mass murder of Palestinian civilians through saturation bombing and engineered starvation similarly a proxy war - and one apparently benefitting the UK and the West, as Badenoch argues?
Interestingly, Badenoch offered two not entirely compatible reasons for Israel's 'war' on Gaza.
Initially, she told Sky: 'Israel is fighting a war where they want to get 58 hostages who have not been returned. That is what all of this is about … What we need to make sure is that we're on the side that is going to eradicate Hamas.'
But even 'eradicating Hamas' is hard to square with British foreign policy objectives. After all, despite the UK's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, it has never attacked Britain, has said it has no such intention, and is unlikely to ever be in a position to do so.
A boy inspects the rubble of a home in Jabalia, Gaza, on 29 May 2025 (Bashar Taleb/AFP)
Instead, it is far more likely that Israel's destruction of Gaza, with visible western collusion, will inflame hotheads into random or misguided acts of violence that cannot be prepared for or stopped - acts of terror similar to the US gunman who recently shot dead two Israeli embassy staff in Washington DC.
That might be reason enough to conclude that the UK ought to distance itself from Israel's actions as quickly as possible, rather than standing squarely behind Tel Aviv.
It was only when she was pushed by Phillips to explain her position that Badenoch switched trajectory. Apparently it wasn't just about the hostages. She added: 'Who funds Hamas? Iran, an enemy of this country.'
Cornered by her own logic, she then grasped tightly the West's neoconservative comfort blanket and spoke of a 'proxy war'.
'Bracing' truth?
Badenoch's point was not lost on Stephen Pollard, the former editor of the Jewish Chronicle. In a column, he noted of the Sky interview: 'Badenoch has a bracing attitude to the truth - she tells it as it is, even if it doesn't make her popular.'
The 'bracing' truth from Badenoch is that Israel is as central to the projection of western power into the oil-rich Middle East as it was more than a century ago, when Britain conceived of Palestine as a 'national home for the Jewish people' in place of the native Palestinian population.
From Britain's perspective, Israel's war on Gaza, as Badenoch concedes, is not centrally about 'eradicating Hamas' or 'getting back the hostages' taken during the group's attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.
Ignore Starmer's theatrics. Gaza's trail of blood leads straight to his door Read More »
Rather, it is about arming Israel to weaken those, like Iran and its regional allies, who refuse to submit to the West's domination of the Middle East - or in the case of Palestinians, to their own dispossession and erasure.
In that way, arming Israel is seen as no different from arming Ukraine to weaken Russian influence in eastern Europe. It is about containing the West's geostrategic rivals - or potential partners, were they not viewed exclusively through the prism of western 'full-spectrum dominance' - as effectively as Israel has locked Palestinians into prisons and concentration camps in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
This strategy is about averting any danger that one day Russia, China, Iran and others could unite effectively to oust the US and its allies from their heavily fortified hilltop. Alliances like Brics are seen as a potential vehicle for such an assault on western dominance.
Whatever the rhetoric, western capitals are not chiefly concerned about military or "civilisational" threats. They do not fear being invaded or conquered by their "enemies". In fact, their reckless behaviours in places like Ukraine make a cataclysmic nuclear confrontation more likely.
What drives western foreign policy is the craving to maintain global economic primacy. And terrorising other states with the West's superior military might is seen as the only way to ensure such primacy.
There is nothing new about the West's fears, nor are they partisan. Differences within western establishments are never over whether the West should assert "full-spectrum dominance" around the globe through client states such as Israel and Ukraine. Instead, factional splits emerge over which elements within those client states the West should be aligning with most closely.
'Rogue' policy
The question of alliances has been particularly fraught in the case of Israel, where the far-right and religious extremist factions in the government have a near-messianic view of their place and role in the Middle East.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many of those closest to him have been trying for decades to manoeuvre the US into launching an attack on Iran, not least to remove Israel's main rival in the Middle East and guarantee its nuclear-armed regional primacy in perpetuity.
So far, Netanyahu has found no takers in the White House. But that hasn't stopped him trying. He is widely reported to be deep in efforts to push Trump into joining an attack on Iran, in the midst of talks between Washington and Tehran.
Over many years, British hawks look like they have been playing their own role in these manoeuvres. In the recent past, at least two ambitious British government ministers on the right have been caught trying to cosy up to the most belligerent elements in the Israeli security establishment.
In 2017, Priti Patel was forced to resign as international development secretary after she was found to have held 12 secret meetings with senior Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, while supposedly on a family holiday. She had other off-the-books meetings with Israeli officials in New York and London.
Six years earlier, then-Defence Secretary Liam Fox also had to step down after a series of shadowy meetings with Israeli officials. Fox's ministry was also known to have drawn up detailed plans for British assistance in the event of a US military strike on Iran, including allowing the Americans to use Diego Garcia, a British territory in the Indian ocean.
Unnamed government officials told the Guardian at the time that Fox had been pursuing an 'alternative' government policy. Former British diplomat Craig Murray was more direct: his sources within government suggested Fox had been conspiring with Israel in a 'rogue' foreign policy towards Iran, against Britain's stated aims.
Crime scene
The West's behaviours are ideologically driven, not rational or moral. The compulsive, self-sabotaging nature of western support for Israel's genocide in Gaza is no different - though far grosser - than the self-sabotaging nature of its actions in Ukraine.
The West has lost the battle against Russia, but refuses to learn or adapt. And it has spent whatever moral legitimacy it still had left in propping up an Israeli military occupier bent on starving millions of people to death, if they cannot be ethnically cleansed into Egypt first.
Netanyahu has not been the easy-to-sell, cuddly military mascot that Zelensky proved to be in Ukraine.
Rather than distance herself from Israel's atrocities, she is happy to place herself - and the UK - at the crime scene
Support for Kyiv could at least be presented as taking the right side in a clash of civilisations with a barbarous Russia. Support for Israel simply exposes the West's hypocrisy, its worship of power for its own sake, and its psychopathic instincts.
Support for Israel's genocide has hollowed out the West's claim to moral superiority for all but its most deluded devotees. Sadly, those still include most of the western political and media establishments, whose only rationale is to evangelise for the belief system over which they preside, claiming it to be the worthiest in history.
Some, like Starmer, are trying to moderate their rhetoric in a desperate attempt to protect the morally bankrupt system that has invested them with power.
Others, like Badenoch, are still so enthralled by the cult of a superior West that they are blind to how preposterous their rantings sound to anyone no longer rapt in devotion. Rather than distance herself from Israel's atrocities, she is happy to place herself - and the UK - at the crime scene.
The scales have fallen from the western public's eyes. Now is the time to hold our leaders fully to account.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.