Share this post:
Predictable as clockwork, the usual suspects are trying to spin Zarah Sultana’s comments to New Left Review into a rift at the top of the new party founded by her and Jeremy Corbyn.
The BBC ran with the angle that Sultana claimed Corbyn “capitulated” on the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism, with Labour and its media outriders rushing to interpret this as an “attack” on the former Labour leader.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, Labour Against Antisemitism, and various other professional attack dogs queued up to denounce her as “extremist”, “a grave insult” to Jews, and proof that the project – temporarily dubbed ‘Your Party’ – is doomed to collapse.
Twaddle.
Sultana did not turn on Corbyn. She explicitly praised the energy, mass appeal, and bold platform of Corbynism.
Instead, she drew lessons from what happened before — lessons that need to be learned if a new, radical, genuinely pro-working-class party is to survive.
Her message is simple: the new party will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters were bullied by the establishment — and bent too far under pressure.
How Corbyn was brought down
To understand Sultana’s point, we need to revisit what happened between 2015 and 2019.
When Mr Corbyn was elected Labour leader, it was a shock to the established system.
Here was a man who had spent his political career opposing wars, backing workers’ struggles, and standing up for Palestinian rights, at the top of the UK’s main Opposition party.
Within weeks of his victory, the establishment was openly discussing how to get rid of him.
The first big weapon chosen was anti-Semitism. Zionist organisations like the Campaign Against Antisemitism and Labour Friends of Israel were rising, having been injected with new vigour (by, according to some sources, the Israeli government, in which case, “vigour” means funding and other resources).
Of course anti-Semitism exists, as it does across society, but these organisations claimed that in Labour under Corbyn its threat was inflated hugely. They weaponised and cynically manipulated this claim into a smear campaign.
In 2016, under pressure, Mr Corbyn appointed Shami Chakrabarti to investigate anti-Semitism within Labour.
Her report found the problem was no worse than in any other party, and that Labour members by and large were not anti-Semitic.
But instead of settling the issue, the findings were rubbished, and Chakrabarti herself was smeared as a stooge for having the audacity to produce balanced conclusions.
From that point on, the attacks escalated. Every critical remark about Israel – which was becoming increasingly hawkish (read: warlike toward its Arab neighbors and persecuting the Palestinians whose territory it had occupied) under prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – was presented as evidence of anti-Semitism.
The media whipped up scandals on a near-weekly basis. MPs like Margaret Hodge hurled abuse at their leader in the Commons chamber, calling him a “racist and anti-Semite” without evidence.
When Ken Livingstone made clumsy remarks about Hitler and Zionism, his words were seized upon as if they proved anti-Semitism was endemic in Labour.
The press, from the Guardian to the Daily Mail, joined in the chorus.
Stories were selectively framed, quotes torn out of context, and a relentless drumbeat of allegations gave the public the impression that Labour had a “problem”.
The IHRA trap
Then came the demand that Labour adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The IHRA wording itself is vague, but its “examples” of antisemitism include things like “claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour” or “applying double standards” to Israel compared to other states.
In practice, this has been used around the world to shut down criticism of Zionism – the movement for Jewish people to have a homeland where the ancient country of Israel used to be – and of Israeli policy.
Mr Corbyn’s leadership initially resisted adopting the definition wholesale, warning that it could stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights.
Labour drafted its own code of conduct that accepted the IHRA definition but included clarifications protecting free speech.
That was a gift for the lobby groups. The Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, and their media mates poured fire on Labour, claiming that anything less than unconditional adoption was proof of anti-Semitism.
The right wing of the party, including then-deputy leader Tom Watson and the Blairites, joined in — seeing an opportunity to crush Corbyn.
Under unbearable pressure, Labour’s NEC finally gave way in September 2018 and adopted the IHRA wording in full. Corbyn added a statement reaffirming the right to criticise Israel, but by then the damage was done.
This is what Sultana means when she says Corbyn “capitulated.”
He hoped compromise would defuse the row.
Instead, it emboldened the accusers.
Far from ending the smears, they only grew louder, until “Labour anti-Semitism” became one of the defining narratives of his leadership.
What Sultana is saying now
In her interview, Sultana was crystal clear: the new party will not repeat that mistake.
She said:
We have to build on the strengths of Corbynism – its energy, mass appeal and bold policy platform – and we also have to recognise its limitations.
It capitulated to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which famously equates it with anti-Zionism, and which even its lead author, Kenneth Stern, has now publicly criticised.
The movement was frightened and far too conciliatory when it was attacked and should have recognised that the state and the media are our class enemies.
You cannot give these people an inch.
This is not an attack on Jeremy Corbyn – the man.
It is an attack on the tactics of appeasement. Sultana’s point is that the new party cannot afford to believe the media will ever be its friend, nor that lobby groups with their own agenda will ever act in good faith.
Show weakness, and they will push harder. Compromise, and they will only demand more.
The backlash
Predictably, the same groups that hounded Mr Corbyn have wasted no time turning their fire on Ms Sultana.
Labour Against Antisemitism called her “unsurprising” and “extremist.”
The Board of Deputies said calling the IHRA a “capitulation” was a “grave insult.”
And Labour itself, now ruled by Netanyahu’s puppy Keir Starmer — desperate to shut down the new party before it gets off the ground — claimed that Mr Corbyn “nearly led Labour to extinction” and that Starmer “tore anti-Semitism out at the roots.”
Let’s take a little look at that.
In 2017, Jeremy Corbyn won Labour’s biggest increase in vote share since 1945, adding 3.5 million votes and coming within a whisker of power.
In 2019 he was dragged down by being asked to accommodate dodgy attitudes to Brexit (by Starmer, among others) and by a ferocious media campaign – but still won more votes than Starmer did in 2024.
Starmer, meanwhile, presided over the lowest turnout in modern times and a vote total millions lower than Mr Corbyn’s — yet the press call it a “landslide” because the Conservatives collapsed.
The claim that Mr Corbyn “nearly led Labour to extinction” is beyond absurd; it’s a rewriting of history designed to hide how weak Starmer’s “triumph” really is, while Starmer is most likely leading Labour to extinction while that party is in office.
Starmer’s Labour has not rooted out anti-Semitism – that was never the plan. Instead, it has silenced Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices, driven out anti-Zionists, and imposed lockstep loyalty to Israel even as Gaza is reduced to rubble.
Why this matters
This is why Sultana’s intervention matters. The establishment wants the story to be about division between her and Corbyn.
But the real story is that the new party has learned the lessons of the last decade.
Corbynism showed that millions of people hunger for a radical alternative — public ownership of national utilities, investment in services, an end to austerity… genuine internationalism.
It also showed how ferocious the backlash will be from those who feel threatened.
The media, the state, and lobby groups are not neutral actors.
They will not play fair.
They will never accept a movement that challenges the rich and powerful.
Mr Corbyn hoped he could rise above the smears through patience and conciliation. He was wrong.
Ms Sultana is saying: next time, we fight back.
So don’t fall for the headlines about “rifts” and “extremism”. Ask who is writing those headlines and what they are trying to gain from them.
What we are seeing is not a split but an evolution.
Jeremy Corbyn lit the spark of a mass movement.
Zarah Sultana is saying that spark will not be smothered again by the same old tricks.
The new party will carry forward Corbynism’s strengths — and it will refuse to be bullied into silence.
That is not division; it is strategy.
And it’s exactly what is needed if this new political force is to survive, grow, and genuinely change British politics.
Share this post:
Zarah Sultana isn’t attacking Jeremy Corbyn. She’s saying their party won’t be bullied
Share this post:
Predictable as clockwork, the usual suspects are trying to spin Zarah Sultana’s comments to New Left Review into a rift at the top of the new party founded by her and Jeremy Corbyn.
The BBC ran with the angle that Sultana claimed Corbyn “capitulated” on the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism, with Labour and its media outriders rushing to interpret this as an “attack” on the former Labour leader.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, Labour Against Antisemitism, and various other professional attack dogs queued up to denounce her as “extremist”, “a grave insult” to Jews, and proof that the project – temporarily dubbed ‘Your Party’ – is doomed to collapse.
Twaddle.
Sultana did not turn on Corbyn. She explicitly praised the energy, mass appeal, and bold platform of Corbynism.
Instead, she drew lessons from what happened before — lessons that need to be learned if a new, radical, genuinely pro-working-class party is to survive.
Her message is simple: the new party will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters were bullied by the establishment — and bent too far under pressure.
How Corbyn was brought down
To understand Sultana’s point, we need to revisit what happened between 2015 and 2019.
When Mr Corbyn was elected Labour leader, it was a shock to the established system.
Here was a man who had spent his political career opposing wars, backing workers’ struggles, and standing up for Palestinian rights, at the top of the UK’s main Opposition party.
Within weeks of his victory, the establishment was openly discussing how to get rid of him.
The first big weapon chosen was anti-Semitism. Zionist organisations like the Campaign Against Antisemitism and Labour Friends of Israel were rising, having been injected with new vigour (by, according to some sources, the Israeli government, in which case, “vigour” means funding and other resources).
Of course anti-Semitism exists, as it does across society, but these organisations claimed that in Labour under Corbyn its threat was inflated hugely. They weaponised and cynically manipulated this claim into a smear campaign.
In 2016, under pressure, Mr Corbyn appointed Shami Chakrabarti to investigate anti-Semitism within Labour.
Her report found the problem was no worse than in any other party, and that Labour members by and large were not anti-Semitic.
But instead of settling the issue, the findings were rubbished, and Chakrabarti herself was smeared as a stooge for having the audacity to produce balanced conclusions.
From that point on, the attacks escalated. Every critical remark about Israel – which was becoming increasingly hawkish (read: warlike toward its Arab neighbors and persecuting the Palestinians whose territory it had occupied) under prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – was presented as evidence of anti-Semitism.
The media whipped up scandals on a near-weekly basis. MPs like Margaret Hodge hurled abuse at their leader in the Commons chamber, calling him a “racist and anti-Semite” without evidence.
When Ken Livingstone made clumsy remarks about Hitler and Zionism, his words were seized upon as if they proved anti-Semitism was endemic in Labour.
The press, from the Guardian to the Daily Mail, joined in the chorus.
Stories were selectively framed, quotes torn out of context, and a relentless drumbeat of allegations gave the public the impression that Labour had a “problem”.
The IHRA trap
Then came the demand that Labour adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The IHRA wording itself is vague, but its “examples” of antisemitism include things like “claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour” or “applying double standards” to Israel compared to other states.
In practice, this has been used around the world to shut down criticism of Zionism – the movement for Jewish people to have a homeland where the ancient country of Israel used to be – and of Israeli policy.
Mr Corbyn’s leadership initially resisted adopting the definition wholesale, warning that it could stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights.
Labour drafted its own code of conduct that accepted the IHRA definition but included clarifications protecting free speech.
That was a gift for the lobby groups. The Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, and their media mates poured fire on Labour, claiming that anything less than unconditional adoption was proof of anti-Semitism.
The right wing of the party, including then-deputy leader Tom Watson and the Blairites, joined in — seeing an opportunity to crush Corbyn.
Under unbearable pressure, Labour’s NEC finally gave way in September 2018 and adopted the IHRA wording in full. Corbyn added a statement reaffirming the right to criticise Israel, but by then the damage was done.
This is what Sultana means when she says Corbyn “capitulated.”
He hoped compromise would defuse the row.
Instead, it emboldened the accusers.
Far from ending the smears, they only grew louder, until “Labour anti-Semitism” became one of the defining narratives of his leadership.
What Sultana is saying now
In her interview, Sultana was crystal clear: the new party will not repeat that mistake.
She said:
This is not an attack on Jeremy Corbyn – the man.
It is an attack on the tactics of appeasement. Sultana’s point is that the new party cannot afford to believe the media will ever be its friend, nor that lobby groups with their own agenda will ever act in good faith.
Show weakness, and they will push harder. Compromise, and they will only demand more.
The backlash
Predictably, the same groups that hounded Mr Corbyn have wasted no time turning their fire on Ms Sultana.
Labour Against Antisemitism called her “unsurprising” and “extremist.”
The Board of Deputies said calling the IHRA a “capitulation” was a “grave insult.”
And Labour itself, now ruled by Netanyahu’s puppy Keir Starmer — desperate to shut down the new party before it gets off the ground — claimed that Mr Corbyn “nearly led Labour to extinction” and that Starmer “tore anti-Semitism out at the roots.”
Let’s take a little look at that.
In 2017, Jeremy Corbyn won Labour’s biggest increase in vote share since 1945, adding 3.5 million votes and coming within a whisker of power.
In 2019 he was dragged down by being asked to accommodate dodgy attitudes to Brexit (by Starmer, among others) and by a ferocious media campaign – but still won more votes than Starmer did in 2024.
Starmer, meanwhile, presided over the lowest turnout in modern times and a vote total millions lower than Mr Corbyn’s — yet the press call it a “landslide” because the Conservatives collapsed.
The claim that Mr Corbyn “nearly led Labour to extinction” is beyond absurd; it’s a rewriting of history designed to hide how weak Starmer’s “triumph” really is, while Starmer is most likely leading Labour to extinction while that party is in office.
Starmer’s Labour has not rooted out anti-Semitism – that was never the plan. Instead, it has silenced Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices, driven out anti-Zionists, and imposed lockstep loyalty to Israel even as Gaza is reduced to rubble.
Why this matters
This is why Sultana’s intervention matters. The establishment wants the story to be about division between her and Corbyn.
But the real story is that the new party has learned the lessons of the last decade.
Corbynism showed that millions of people hunger for a radical alternative — public ownership of national utilities, investment in services, an end to austerity… genuine internationalism.
It also showed how ferocious the backlash will be from those who feel threatened.
The media, the state, and lobby groups are not neutral actors.
They will not play fair.
They will never accept a movement that challenges the rich and powerful.
Mr Corbyn hoped he could rise above the smears through patience and conciliation. He was wrong.
Ms Sultana is saying: next time, we fight back.
So don’t fall for the headlines about “rifts” and “extremism”. Ask who is writing those headlines and what they are trying to gain from them.
What we are seeing is not a split but an evolution.
Jeremy Corbyn lit the spark of a mass movement.
Zarah Sultana is saying that spark will not be smothered again by the same old tricks.
The new party will carry forward Corbynism’s strengths — and it will refuse to be bullied into silence.
That is not division; it is strategy.
And it’s exactly what is needed if this new political force is to survive, grow, and genuinely change British politics.
Share this post:
you might also like
Desperate John Mann falsely denounces Jewish doctor’s letter criticising him
Anti-Semitism debate: Michael Rosen on Israel’s ‘right to exist’
Jackie Walker’s crowdfunded action means Labour’s general secretary is facing TWO legal cases against him