Her response is revealing because it shows that the new party will seek to outdo even Corbyn’s Labour in its attitude to Israel – and, yes, to Jews
August 19, 2025 09:09
I don’t often turn to the New Left Review for anything, let alone for acute analysis of the state of British politics. Mostly it’s impenetrable, written in that self-consciously social science “academic” idiom deliberately designed to exclude ordinary mortals, but which is usually little more than a mechanism to obscure the fact that the content is drivel.
The current issue of the NLR, for example, contains gems such as Zhang Yongle on Reconfiguring Hegemony and Aaron Benanav on Beyond Capitalism (“In the first instalment of a major contribution to the reconceptualisation of a post-capitalist social order, Aaron Benanav marshals insights from a long century of socialist thought and practice – Cabet, Marx, Preobrazhensky, Neurath, Keynes – to lay the theoretical foundations for his own multi-criterial model.”)
But the August issue contains an interview with Zarah Sultana which is unusually interesting, both for the NLR and for Sultana, albeit not in the sense which either will have intended. Because the interview makes clear something that is both obvious to anyone who has followed British politics since 2015, and yet also an important statement about that section of the left from which Sultana and the co-founder of her new party, Jeremy Corbyn, come.
Asked about the lessons from Corbyn’s time as Labour leader, Sultana replies: “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.” If you are wondering what those limitations are…go on, have a guess.
According to Sultana, Labour’s big mistake under Corbyn was that, “It capitulated to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which famously equates it with anti-Zionism.”
Her answer manages to be revealing, obvious and misleading at the same time. To take these in reverse order: it’s misleading because the IHRA definition specifically states that anti-Zionism is not in itself the same as antisemitism. It spells out that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The point of the IHRA definition with regard to Israel is to provide a guide as to when that red line is crossed and when criticism of Israel does become, in effect, criticism of Jews as Jews. In other words, that they are not the same until antisemitism rears its head.
In one sense, it is difficult to comprehend how someone whose political career has had criticism of Israel as one of its cornerstones does not understand this fundamental point about the IHRA definition. But another explanation of her words is also relevant. Responding to coverage of her NLR interview, Sultana said yesterday: “I say it loudly and proudly: I’m an anti-Zionist.” Could, for Sultana, being anti-Zionist mean not just criticising Israel but also denying the legitimacy of Israel itself?
But that brings us to the obvious part of her answer. Because in every other sense it is indeed obvious that she would say this, since her political career has been made in that part of the left in which it is axiomatic that anything to do with Israel is by definition bad, and any criticism of Israel is justified, no matter what form it takes. Hence the battle that took place within Labour over the IHRA definition, when the party leadership under Corbyn resisted implementing it until it was unavoidable because of the make-up of the party’s National Executive Committee – and even then tried to stymie it with caveats. Those who fought the IHRA definition within the left did so precisely because they do not consider criticism of Israel can be antisemitic, because Israel is by definition bad, and they are by self-definition good – and so they or any criticism they make of Israel cannot be antisemitic. QED.
But for all the idiocy and obviousness of her answer, Sultana’s response is nonetheless revealing because it shows that her new party will seek to outdo even Corbyn’s Labour in its attitude to Israel – and, yes, to Jews. It is revealing that, for Sultana, the lesson from Labour between 2015 and 2020 is that it was too soft on Israel and too hidebound by the notion of antisemitism. That is indeed revealing, even if it is also obvious and inevitable, because we already knew that about the Corbynite left.
This is a good thing, because the creation of a new party with such a foundation will act as a magnet for those of a similar mind who remain in Labour. It will draw them away from the mainstream Labour Party.
But important as that is, its practical impact on Labour will be limited because of another factor: Labour’s fear of the rising sectarian Muslim vote. Even though the more visceral Israel haters will leave Labour, there will remain those for whom attacking Israel may not be the core of their politics, but for whom it is still a political imperative. To all intents and purposes, after all, Labour today is pursuing policies which are almost indistinguishable from those of Corbyn and Sultana (such as the government’s plan to reward Hamas for October 7 by recognising a Palestinian state).
So yes, Zarah Sultana has given a revealing interview about her new party and Israel. But does it change anything? Not in the least.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.
