The short version
- The Green Party voted to adopt a policy treating Zionism as racism and calling for a single Palestinian state, a move opposed by most of its parliamentary representatives.
- Internal anger has mounted against party leader Zack Polanski for encouraging members to miss the vote to campaign in a separate election, despite his refusal to take a side on the motion itself.
- Legal experts suggest the new policy may violate equality laws, while Jewish Greens express concern over potential disciplinary actions against affiliated organizations.
The Green Party in England and Wales has formally adopted a contentious policy position that equates Zionism with racism and advocates for the replacement of Israel with a single Palestinian state. The binding motion was approved at the party’s annual conference in Brighton, passing by a margin of 1,022 votes to 813. This decision marks a significant shift in the organization’s official stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, moving away from previous neutrality regarding whether Israelis and Palestinians should choose between one or two states.
The vote has immediately sparked internal dissent and raised questions about the party’s future cohesion. Vivien Lichtenstein, who heads the Jewish Greens, indicated that she might leave the organization as a result of the decision. She described the motion as unhelpful and argued that it fails to improve conditions for Palestinians. While acknowledging that opinions among Jewish members are divided, Lichtenstein emphasized her concern that the policy could lead to disciplinary actions against Jewish organizations in the UK that officially support Zionism, including some synagogues.
Compounding the controversy is the conduct of Zack Polanski, the leader of the Greens in England and Wales. Polanski chose not to attend the vote and actively encouraged supporters to seek refunds on their conference tickets so they could instead campaign for him in the Holborn and St Pancras parliamentary by-election. He had previously requested that the conference be postponed to allow the party to focus on his electoral efforts, but the executive committee refused this request. Consequently, Polanski did not take a public side on the motion, though he later justified its broad arguments by pointing to the death toll in Gaza.
Many party members have expressed frustration with Polanski’s handling of the situation. Critics argue that his absence and encouragement for others to leave the conference contributed to the passage of the motion, which some believe could have been stopped with greater leadership engagement. One long-standing member noted that there is significant anger regarding what is perceived as a disinterest in such a critical issue, suggesting that the party cannot rely solely on informal sentiment to manage major policy decisions.
The new policy faces potential legal scrutiny. Four of the Greens’ five Members of Parliament opposed the motion, and it is expected to encounter challenges under UK equality laws. Adam Wagner KC, a barrister known for leading a successful case against the Labour Party regarding antisemitism, stated that there is a strong risk the motion contravenes the Equality Act 2010. He argued that the policy could discriminate against and harass individuals who hold Zionist beliefs or are Jewish more generally.
Lichtenstein clarified that her primary worry is not personal accusation but the broader impact on community organizations. She supports numerous groups working against occupation and assisting Palestinians, many of which are Jewish or joint Arab-Jewish organizations. She fears the party might label these entities as racist due to their Zionist affiliations, creating a hostile environment for allies within the Jewish community. Supporters of the motion, led by a group called Greens for Palestine, have insisted that such disciplinary actions would not occur.
International reactions have been swift and severe. Israel’s foreign ministry condemned the motion as a clear antisemitic text. As a result of this stance, Polanski has been barred from entering Israel. The diplomatic fallout underscores the high stakes involved in the party’s internal debate, linking domestic political maneuvering with international relations and human rights discourse.
As the Green Party navigates this period of intense scrutiny, members are consulting lawyers to determine the viability of challenging the policy. The situation highlights a growing tension between the party’s grassroots activism on Palestine and its broader electoral strategy. With the by-election approaching, the leadership’s focus on immediate political gains appears to have clashed with long-term ideological positioning, leaving the organization in a state of uncertainty regarding both its legal standing and its membership base.
The coming weeks will likely reveal whether the motion can withstand legal challenges and if the internal divisions will lead to significant departures. Lichtenstein has stated she is taking time to discuss the matter with colleagues before making a final decision about her membership. The outcome of these deliberations could reshape the Green Party’s identity and its approach to issues of race, religion, and international conflict in British politics.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Head of Jewish Greens says she may leave party over ‘Zionism is racism’ vote
