23 August 2025

Has Jeremy Corbyn Learnt Anything from What Happened Between 2015 and 2019? Or is Your Party Destined to Repeat the Same Mistakes?

 Will Corbyn Take a Leaf Out of Zarah Sultana’s Book & Stand Up to the False Anti-Semitism Smears of the BBC & the Right-wing Media?

When the far-right Times journalist, Oliver Kamm, accused Zarah Sultana of ‘anti-Semitism’, a term that has been drained of all meaning, she stood up and declared that anti-Zionism was not anti-Semitism. 

Kamm’s splenetic response had been on account of Zarah’s declaration the previous day that she was a proud anti-Zionist. It is to be welcomed that the lesson Zarah has learnt over the past decade is that the way to defeat the Right is to stand up to them and not back down. She is right to reject the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism.


Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand seems to have learnt nothing. Throughout his leadership he declared that he supported the so-called Two State Solution, which was never anything other than a cover for continued colonisation and occupation.

Whilst such a mistake might have been understandable in the past today it is not. The Israeli government and the Knesset made it clear when they voted by 68-9 for a resolution rejecting a two-state solution that Zionism is not interested in anything other than the expulsion of the Palestinians. Not one Zionist party opposed the resolution.

The problem with Corbyn is that although he has always supported the Palestinians against Israel’s occupation and oppression he has never asked why Israel behaves in the way it does. He has never called himself an anti-Zionist. Zionism is a foreign land to him.

Instead he has accepted that a seemingly rational and sensible solution like the two state solution could be agreed. Except that we don’t live in a reasonable and sensible world.  We live in a world dominated by Western imperialism of which Israel is its attack dog.

Israel is a settler colonial state. What that means quite simply is that the settlers seek to replace, not live alongside, the indigenous population. I defy Corbyn or anyone else to point to a single example of where settler-colonials have opted to live peacefully with the native people.

It is true that in its early days some Labour Zionists like Kalvarisky and Chaim Arlossoroff thought they could persuade the Palestinians to peacefully accept colonisation but Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, which Netanyahu adheres to, wrote in his famous essay The Iron Wall that:

My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.

This is also the answer to those dishonest Labour Zionists who pretend that Zionism is some form of Jewish national liberation movement rather than a colonisatory enterprise.

The slogan which became identified with Zionist colonisation was that Palestine was ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’. Lord Shaftesbury is said to have coined the slogan. It expressed perfectly the attitude of the colonists to the native people. They simply did not exist. In Australia it was termed terra nullis.

The Zionists were warned that Palestine was not empty, most famously by Ahad Ha'am, a Cultural Zionist, who wrote:

We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, a non-cultivated wilderness… But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country, Arab land, which lies fallow... [The Truth From the Land of Israel, 1891. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs]

Throughout the pre-state days the Zionist movement was obsessed with the question of how they would turn the minority Jewish population into a majority. The solution they agreed upon was ‘transfer’ or what we would now call ethnic cleansing.


David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel and Chairman of the Jewish Agency (the pre-State government) wrote on 5 October 1937 to his 16 year old son Amos:

We must expel the Arabs and take their places…. And, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places- then we have force at our disposal.

This is one of a host of similar quotations. Zionism always had to the fore of its mind the ‘demographic problem’, the question of how to ensure that there was a stable Jewish majority in the state it created.

In 1948 this was achieved in the areas i by means of the ‘transfer’ of the Palestinians to the neighbouring countries. Three-quarters of a million Palestinians were expelled. In 1967 Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza but much to their regret they did not succeed in expelling more than 300,000 Palestinians.

Over two million Palestinians remained which today has grown to 5 million. A temporary solution was to institute military rule over the Palestinians, depriving them of all democratic rights whilst according those same rights to the Jewish settlers. However this Apartheid was always envisaged as a temporary solution.

The Israeli Labor Party and Meretz envisaged a Palestinian Bantustan dressed up as the two state solution but Netanyahu and the settlers refused to accept any kind of Palestinian state. To them there was only one solution – either complete subjugation and no democratic rights or transfer/expulsion. Oslo was about a Bantustan.

Today in Gaza we are seeing these plans coming to fruition. Ethnic cleansing coupled with genocide. Just as in Nazi Germany where Hitler first sought to expel the Jews before turning to genocide.

Israel is a settler-colonial state. It will never agree to a Palestinian state and those who foster such illusions are helping to maintain Israel as a Jewish Supremacist state. Israel is an expansionist state and that is why, alone in the world, it has never defined its borders. Today it is in occupation of parts of Lebanon, Syria and well as Palestine.

The original aim of the Zionists was to achieve Eretz Yisrael, the Biblical Land of Israel. The borders of the Land of Israel stretch from the River Litani in Lebanon to the Euphrates in Iraq and the Nile in Egypt. In other words there is plenty more room for expansion.

Of course Israel, the attack dog of the West, can only conquer more territory with the permission of its imperialist sponsors but as we know they are reluctant to hold their rottweiler back.

There are some things that Corbyn should understand. A Jewish state, like any ethno-religious state is a racist state. This was true of the Christian ethnic states in Eastern Europe – Romania, Slovakia, Croatia - which were the most enthusiastic partners of Hitler in the Holocaust. It is also true of Israel. Israel cannot be reformed. It must be replaced by a unitary democratic secular state.

That is what anti-Zionism means. Anyone who supports a two state solution is not an anti-Zionist. Objectively they are doing the work of the Zionists. Anyone who is sincere about putting an end to ethnic cleansing and genocide must be clear. Israel is a failed state. Israel has no more ‘right to exist’ than Apartheid South Africa or the Nazi state.

Corbyn must abandon his support for the two state solution . It is a neo-colonial solution. The reason that Labour Friends of Israel pretends to support it is because they know it will never happen. It is a slogan designed to confuse the Palestine solidarity movement. When you are faced with a genocidal apartheid state, a Zionist state, then you cannot be neutral as Archbishop Desmond Tutu said in the face of injustice. That is to take the side of the oppressor. It is long past time when Corbyn declared he was an an anti-Zionist.

Your Party will face many difficulties in the years ahead. If it is to succeed it must have a united leadership agreed upon common principles. One of those must be its attitude to Apartheid Israel. It has to be an anti-Zionist party. Yes we will be accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ but it will be easier to rebut if we are clear about our principles.

If the McCarthyists and racists accuse us of anti-Semitism let them. We can tell them that the original Zionists were Christians not Jews. That Zionism is a Christian invention. That when Zionism first came on the scene most Jews saw it as a form of Jewish anti-Semitism. It was Hitler who did more than most to create the Israeli state. We are clear when we say that it is not anti-Semitic to support equality between Jews and Palestinians in Palestine just as we supported equality between Black and White in South Africa.

If Jeremy Corbyn is not prepared to abandon Zionism and the Israeli state then it is best that the leadership of Your Party passes to the young and dynamic Zara Sultana.

Those of Corbyn’s advisors who failed to stand up to the anti-Semitism smear merchants – Karie Murphy and James Schneider in particular – should also not be in the leadership unless they are prepared to come clean about their own past role. 

Schneider is married to Sophie Nazemi, Starmer’s press secretary. Are we seriously to believe that the married couple don’t discuss politics together? Schneider should be kept as far away as possible from the leadership team.

We need clear red water between the future and the disastrous period 2015-19 when Corbyn supported Jon Lansman turning Momentum from a campaigning organisation into a one-man dictatorship that ended up echoing the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement’s ‘anti-Semitism’ smears. It was no surprise when Lansman joined them.

If we don’t get things right now then the present honeymoon period will not last.

12 comments:

  1. "Has Jeremy Corbyn Learnt Anything from What Happened Between 2015 and 2019? Or is Your Party Destined to Repeat the Same Mistakes?"

    Tony, your first question seems to be starting from a position in which Corbyn is just completely naive, rather than the fact he was in the Labour Party for 59 years as they supported endless atrocities in the name of imperialism. Maybe your question would be better if it was aimed at and about Corbyns supporters.

    As for the same mistakes, was it not already a mistake that JC took so long to get his act together ? Has had ample time to leave Labour but hung around, like a doormat, and lots of his supporters seem to think it's down to him being naive or weak, not his unconditional support for an imperialist party.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for setting this out in plain English, it will enable me to refute all the arguments that are used by Zionists who claim to support Palestinian rights. It is the Israeli Zionists and their western sponsors who may support a 2 state solution even as everything they do ensures that this will never happen. As ever the truth is in plain sight. A two state solution cannot be achieved with only one side willing to compromise, much like ending the genocide in Gaza when only one side wants peace, it’s only an excuse to maintain the occupation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Corbyn is not the man to lead a new party. Corbyn abandoned his allies and foolishly spoke of a two state solution. Corbyn did so knowing the Zionists would never permit it. So Corbyn stood on the side of Zionism, and abandoned the Palestinians.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-no-palestinian-state-under-my-watch/




    ReplyDelete
  4. Advocatus Diaboli23 August 2025 at 10:41

    "Will Corbyn Take a Leaf Out of Zarah Sultana’s Book & Stand Up to the False Anti-Semitism Smears of the BBC & the Right-wing Media?"

    Don't hold your breath Tony ;O)

    ReplyDelete
  5. When Ibn Saud was invited to be part of the Balfour /Rothchild plan in their Declaration
    he was offered a large bribe to be Paid by the US "jewish Mafia" who had been expelled from Russia to take the Palestinians from Palestine which was to be ethnically cleansed to make way for this new Zionist State. Ibn Saud refused saying it would be ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL .

    30 years on nothing change 1948 ; It was still illegal and immoral to ethnically cleansed Palestine for this Jewish State /

    Zionist Israel Does not have NEVER DID HAVE and NEVER WILL HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST .
    It suited Balfour to go along with this . When the Jews left Russians he was desperate ensue in 1905 that they did not come to Britain .

    His 1905 speech when passing legislation to prevent Jews from Eastern Europe coming to Britain This was a way to rid Europe from Jews that he was unable to expel :-

    "To mitigate the age-long miseries created for Western civilisation by the presence in its midst of a Body the Jews which it too long regarded as alien and even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or to absorb.".

    Balfour , a committed Antisemite ,was 30 years ahead of Hitler in wanting in his words to "CLEANSE EUROPE OF JEWS". In fact for much of the regime of the Nazis the Zionist co-operated with them until the route to Palestine was closed and then ethnic cleansing was replaced with the Genocide in 1943 for all jews, those who didn't want to go to Palestine and those who did Jews as well as all the others who were also being fed into the gas chambers .

    When Ethnic cleansing fails GENOCIDE BECOMES THE ONLY SOLUTION

    That is what we are seeing in Gaza and will se throughout Palestine and "Greater Israel"

    THAT IS ZIONISM

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Tony - As always, bang on the mark. I am rather baffled why a two state solution has been talked about by anyone on the left. I was quizzed about it by someone a few years ago who seemed to be using it as a gauge to work out if I was to be trusted as I was support Chris Williamson and David Miller. Apparently, saying that there is clearly no room for a two state solution - where are the Palestinians going to have this state? In the back garden of zionist extremists who run wildly attacking them in the West Bank. The two state solution has been a disappearing before our very eyes as more and more settlements break up the West Bank. I was very sure - It's one state - Called Palestine where Muslims, Jews and Christians live. Although, I do wonder now - how that can happen. The Jewish people as part of the citizen army have become wild killers. I cannot imagine any solution other than exiled Palestinians return and repopulate the whole of Palestine and some kind of trials to prosecute all those guilty of killing innocent people. I suspect the idea that going back to The Muslims and Jewish people all living in peace together looks like a huge mountain to climb. Maybe some kind of - if you are Jewish Palestinian, then that is your only passport and not dual with wherever else you live. If you stay, then you give up being American or British or whatever. I am just thinking aloud here. No idea how anyone gets passed this. I guess I thought that about Rwanda too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Agree Tony with your lucid and, I would hope , self evident article on the idiocy of a two state solution , a sort of safe place for liberals who have no intention of upsetting Israel but have only succeeding in emboldening Israel to reject all solutions bar their own Final one for Palestinians Just as Corbyn embraced appeasement and saw so many of us expelled for anti semitism (sic) under his watch , so the weakness of the criticism of Israeli genocide , without a single meaningful sanction , means it will continue . Meanwhile Reform sets the agenda , St George flags intermingled with the Israeli one cover England , and still we’re waiting for this new party to get its act together . 800,000 members is phenomenal but i fear they will drift away unless the Party launches .
    I watched the Guardian’s Zoe Williams this morning saying Your Party should be the one to offer a moral fight to Faragism rather than an appeasement strategy but she doubted its leaders had the competence and we’d best look to the Greens . The media pundits are sneering at the ‘party with no name ‘ and the disputes over leadership and Zionism between Corbyn and Sultana …..who should really be the leader . She is unapologetic ,articulate ,has energy and can relate to the hundreds of thousands of young people desperate to stem the tide of xenophobia and signing up with optimism .
    I hope they’re not let down again . If you stand in the middle of the road etc etc ,,,,,,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "should be the one to offer a moral fight to Faragism"
      That's the problem, all Corbyn seems to do is moralizing. Just listen to his Owen Jones interview where he talks about how he's going to attend an anti migrant counter protest. These are where the left shout "racist scum" at the supposed far right, some of whom are raising the fact that migrants are being housed, while our own citizens arent, albeit being intimidating and thuggish in getting their point across. Jeremy had a perfect opportunity to advocate for the building of more public housing, an end to landlordism (apparently his sons one) and how hotels should just be for holidays. Instead, we're just left with him moralizing about things and more or less cool with stashing migrants in hotels because it's in opposition to the right.

      "She is unapologetic ,articulate ,has energy and can relate to the hundreds of thousands of young people desperate to stem the tide of xenophobia and signing up with optimism"
      Ok, but let's not forget she sat in Labour for at least a year of genocide, so if she's so "unapologetic" would of moved on sooner.

      Delete
    2. Labour Party: bombs and invades Iraq and Afghanistan, looting both countries, killing about 1 million in the former and hundreds of thousands in the latter. Rolls out pfi at home, and helps bail out the banks during the financial crash.

      Jeremy Corbyn: remains in and tells people to vote Labour

      Corbyn fans: he's a hero to the Stop The War movement

      Labour Party: accused Jeremy of antisemitism

      Corbyn: throws colleagues under the bus, gives credence to the allegations, and gladly remains in the party.

      Corbyn fans: he's so weak, it's not his fault, he was smeared. Let's spend the next few years mourning this loss and romaticizing about the 'Spirit of 45'.

      But sure, this new project is going to be the vanguard

      Delete
  8. This is so important and your analysis is spot on, Tony. Hiding behind some broad anti-racism is totally inadequate. Zionism needs calling out explicitly and the new party being perfectly clear about its anti-Zionism. Sultana must take the lead for us and name and shame the Zionist fifth column around Corbyn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. One thing all the commenters seem to be forgetting is the power of the media. The BBC article Tony linked to may have quoted sultana, but anyone who read it will see that she got plenty flak from the Jewish lobby, and that would just increase exponentially if the new party started doing well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The one and only reason he's not still nursing his "career" in the friends of genocide "Labour Party" is because he was kicked out -- and very much against his wishes. What can people conclude from that ?

    ReplyDelete

Please submit your comments below