Boris Johnson's views on Israel could help him take the leadership

Of course, Boris Johnson is known for being outspoken. At home in London, this usually counts in his favour.

During his current visit to Israel, however, it has been widely reported that Johnson described the country as "the only democracy in the region," and praised its "open, pluralistic society." He also criticised the anti Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement as "foolish," calling its British supporters "a bunch of, you know, corduroy-jacketed academics." Yesterday, ensuing security fears, and the angered retraction of invitations from Palestinian organisations, led him to cancel planned public appearances in the West Bank.

Many in the Conservative Party echo Johnson's views. This is strongly suggested by the popularity of the Conservative Friends of Israel: one of the UK's largest political lobby groups, its membership includes around 80 per cent of Conservative MPs. But it is hard to think of many of them who would speak out as openly as Johnson. And, while discomfort abounded at Jeremy Corbyn's disclosure of "friendship" with Hamas, few Britons seemed provoked into advertising their support for Israel.

Yet Boris holds a powerful position. Not simply as the bumbling superstar mayor, but also as a leading contender in the eventual Conservative leadership contest. In the midst of Labour confusion, this puts him firmly in the running for the future Prime Ministership. If he continues to be outspoken about Israel—or indeed, if the week's events escalate further—is Britain more likely to change its views about him, or about foreign affairs?

Israel is an uncomfortable topic for many. Avoided at dinner parties and committee meetings alike, its discussion is reduced to momentary Facebook petitions, and hijacked by polarisation. A recent YouGov poll suggested that while 16 per cent of Britons' sympathies lay with with the Israelis, and 22 per cent with the Palestinians, almost half claimed to have overriding sympathies with neither, and 22 per cent didn't know. Perhaps this refusal to take sides implies hope for a balanced two-state solution. Perhaps some people forget that Israel needs criticism, as well as support (like any similar democracy), or are unaware of the way in which some corrupt and troublesome factions of Palestinian leadership suppress the Palestinian people. More convincingly, however, it shows a deep unease over the issue.

For many years, the Israeli-Palestinian problem has been assumed to be the nucleus of discord in the Middle East, yet hopes of finding a solution seem increasingly naïve. Not only because of frequent outbreaks of serious unrest, exemplified by the recent spate of stabbings in Jerusalem, and last year's Gaza conflict. But also because of the surrounding post-Arab Spring disaster zone. A miracle fix for the Israelis and Palestinians would not solve the wider problems in the Middle East. Somewhat ironically, however, Israel is now beginning to make informal alliances with old enemies in the area: comparisons with the threat of fundamentalist uprisings seem favourable, and it provides much-needed humanitarian aid to its neighbours.

Even Boris might struggle to gain popularity in the UK through lobbying for an unpopular and uncertain cause like Israel. But obsession over the upcoming European referendum is starting to swamp his party; this will only get worse. Regardless of campaigning yet to come, it still seems unlikely—as an expected "outer"—that Johnson will be on the winning side. If he can find a way to put his views across seriously—and tread a slightly more nuanced line—a new focus on foreign affairs might be just what he needs.