Zack Polanski’s Green Party has been referred to Britain’s equality watchdog after members voted to adopt a motion declaring “Zionism is racism”, escalating a dispute over antisemitism, Palestinian rights and the party’s treatment of Jewish members.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) has referred the party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), alleging that it has discriminated against Jewish members and associates, and continues to do so, in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
The referral follows a contentious vote at the Green Party’s conference on Sunday, when members backed the motion by 1,022 votes to 813. The resolution defined Zionism as racism and was adopted without substantive amendment.
The complaint places the party under renewed scrutiny over whether its position on Israel and Zionism could conflict with its legal obligations towards Jewish members, including those who identify with or support the idea of a Jewish homeland.
The EHRC has not, on the information provided, made a finding that the party has breached equality law. The referral represents an allegation that the regulator may be asked to examine.
Polanski did not participate in the vote but issued a statement after the motion passed, seeking to distinguish criticism of the Israeli state from antisemitism.
“Antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state are, and must always be, completely distinct – blurring the line between the two is not only wrong but antisemitic, and makes Jewish people less safe,” he said.
“It’s our role as a movement for justice to protect both the rights of Palestinians and our Jewish communities here in the UK.”
The Green Party leader added: “As leader, I will not accept any exclusion or refusal to engage with anyone, because of the religious or communal body they are part of.”
He said he was “proud of our party’s principled position on fighting for freedom and justice for Palestinians”.
The CAA had written to the party before the conference seeking clarification on the motion’s implications. After receiving no response, it sent a further letter on October 7 asking how the resolution would be implemented.
In its correspondence, the organisation argued that describing Zionism as a “racist and settler-colonial ideology” was a definition many Jews, supporters of Israel and people who identify as Zionists would reject.
It also contended that the motion effectively challenged the legitimacy of Israel’s existence and risked making sympathy for the country, or support for a Jewish homeland, grounds for exclusion or sanction within the party.
Gideon Falter, the CAA’s chief executive, said the organisation would “not stand idly by as extremists hijack a political party and make antisemitism its openly stated policy”.
“On October 7, we did not just remember, we acted. We have referred the Green Party to the EHRC, just as we referred Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party,” he said.
Falter cited the EHRC’s investigation into Labour, which resulted in a landmark report on antisemitism and discrimination within the party, arguing that political organisations could be held accountable under equality law.
“The Green Party’s decision to adopt its ‘Zionism is racism’ motion is racist and unlawful because it discriminates against Jews,” he said. That remains the CAA’s allegation, rather than a legal conclusion established by the latest referral.
The organisation said it was aware of Jewish and Zionist Green Party members who considered their continued membership untenable, as well as others who had already left. It invited those affected to contact it confidentially while it considered potential further action.
The dispute also threatens to deepen divisions within the party. Adrian Ramsay, the MP for Waveney and a former co-leader who was succeeded by Polanski last year, has refused to rule out resigning over the motion.
The CAA separately confirmed that it had reported the motion’s author, Lubna Speitan, to the Metropolitan Police on another matter.
For the Greens, the controversy creates a difficult test of how the party reconciles its advocacy for Palestinian rights with its stated commitment to protecting Jewish communities. Critics argue that the motion risks conflating Jewish identity with support for Israel; supporters of the resolution distinguish their opposition to Zionism from hostility towards Jewish people.
The immediate question is whether the EHRC considers the referral grounds for further scrutiny. The broader political challenge is whether the party can maintain that distinction in practice, while reassuring Jewish members that their religious identity and political views will not expose them to discrimination.
The motion has turned an internal ideological dispute into a potential test of the legal responsibilities of a British political party.
Leave a Comment