Britain’s Green Party has formally adopted a policy defining Zionism as a form of racism, triggering an immediate diplomatic backlash from Israel and exposing divisions within the party over Jewish self-determination, Palestinian statehood and the boundaries of its anti-racism platform.
The motion, approved at the party’s annual conference in Brighton by 1,022 votes to 813, makes the Greens one of the most explicitly anti-Zionist political forces in British mainstream politics. It also calls for a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine, with equal rights for all and Jerusalem as its capital.
Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader, did not vote. He had left the conference to campaign in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. Polanski, who is Jewish, has previously expressed support for the motion’s underlying argument but had sought amendments to its wording, including provisions that would have allowed for the possibility of a two-state solution.
Read more related news:
Polanski under pressure as guillotine image triggers police inquiry
Polanski faces fight for Starmer’s seat as Green activists demand Palestinian candidate
Polanski under fire over ‘false flag’ claims as Greens tear themselves apart over Israel
Polanski’s party votes to brand Zionism ‘racism in a divisive vote
The Israeli government responded by sharply condemning the resolution and subsequently barring Polanski from entering Israel.
Israel’s foreign ministry described the decision as “shocking”, arguing that the Greens’ support for a single state across historic Palestine amounted to a rejection of Israel’s continued existence rather than simply opposition to the policies of its government.
“The Greens have adopted not only the green of Hamas, but also its ideology: the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle,” an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman said.
The ministry argued that the resolution “legitimises armed struggle” and called on British political parties, particularly the governing Labour Party, to reject it. Israel’s interpretation of the policy is disputed by the Green Party, which says its resolution concerns Zionism as a political ideology and does not target Jews or Judaism.
The party has defended the right of its membership to determine policy while insisting that it remains opposed to racism and discrimination.
“This has been a serious and deeply felt debate within our membership,” a Green Party spokesman said. “Our members value the ability to bring forward and decide party policy, and conference has now made its decision.”
“The Green Party is an anti-racist party and has consistently opposed the illegal occupation of both Palestinian and Syrian land, called for an end to arms sales to the Israeli government and spoken out fearlessly about the devastating situation in Gaza and the West Bank.”
The controversy, however, has exposed an unusually deep divide between the party’s conference membership and several of its elected representatives.
Former Green leader Caroline Lucas criticised the motion before the vote, warning that there was no single definition of Zionism and that the wording risked alienating Jewish people.
Four of the party’s five MPs have also expressed reservations or opposition. Adrian Ramsay said the motion did not reflect his views and conflicted with the Greens’ previous commitment to equal rights and self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians. Carla Denyer said there were elements she supported but others she could not, while Ellie Chowns warned that the policy could undermine the party’s ability to campaign effectively for Palestinian rights.
The internal dispute became particularly acute after amendments designed to moderate the motion were rejected. Among them was an amendment intended to prevent the policy from being used to pressure or discipline members because of their affiliation with Jewish community institutions that describe themselves as Zionist.
For some Jewish Greens, the vote has raised questions about whether their political and communal identities can comfortably coexist inside the party.
Elise Benjamin, a Jewish Green member, said: “I’m petrified. The motion basically says Jewish members will have to decide between membership of a synagogue or of the party. I fully expect vexatious complaints against me now. I don’t understand how this helps Palestinians? All this is an attack on Jews.”
The Movement for Progressive Judaism has condemned the resolution as “anti-Semitic in its formulation and intention”, a characterisation rejected by the Green Party, which says opposition to Zionism should not automatically be equated with hostility towards Jews.
The row has also drawn a direct response from Labour. Bridget Phillipson, the Labour chair and equalities minister, described the motion as “fundamentally wrong” and “shameful”, arguing that it could label many British Jews and Jews elsewhere as racist simply for supporting Israel’s right to exist.
“The leadership of the Green Party must make clear that this will not be their position moving forward,” she said.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp also attacked the decision, arguing that British Jews should not have to abandon support for Jewish self-determination in order to participate fully in British political life.
The Green MPs, meanwhile, sought to draw a distinction between opposition to Israeli government policy and hostility towards Jewish people.
“We will never tolerate any form of discrimination or harassment,” they said in a joint statement.
“We will continue to stand in opposition to genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and the illegal occupation. We will continue to call out the heinous crimes of the Netanyahu government. And we will continue to work to ensure that the Green Party is an anti-racist party in every way.”
“We know there is no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people.”
The immediate consequences are political and diplomatic, but the deeper question is whether the Greens can sustain a distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism while making opposition to Zionism a formal party position.
The vote has transformed what was once primarily a debate over Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the future of Palestinian statehood into a broader argument about the meaning of Jewish self-determination — and about how far a British political party can redefine its position on one of the most contested questions in international politics without fracturing its own ranks.
Leave a Comment