The short version
- Zack Polanski has refused to step down as Green Party leader despite criticism from former leaders and Jewish members regarding his handling of a contentious conference motion.
- The party adopted a policy defining Zionism as an ethnonationalist ideology supporting a Jewish state, while advocating for a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine.
- Polanski secured 33 percent of the vote in the Holborn by-election, finishing second to Labour but increasing his share significantly compared to the previous general election.
Zack Polanski has pledged to remain leader of the Green Party despite intensifying internal criticism following a significant by-election defeat and a divisive policy shift regarding Israel. The controversy centers on a motion passed by party members that characterizes Zionism as a form of racism and calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine, encompassing modern-day Israel. Polanski’s refusal to resign has drawn sharp rebukes from prominent figures within the party, including Vivien Lichtenstein, leader of the Jewish Greens, who argued that his absence during the debate was a major error.
The political pressure mounted after Polanski finished second in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, losing to Labour candidate Sagal Abdi-Wali. While the Greens failed to capture the seat previously held by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, their vote share rose by 22 percent compared to the 2024 general election, securing 33 percent of the total against Labour’s 45 percent. Polanski defended his decision to stay on, asserting that the movement’s strength extends beyond any single electoral result or policy vote.
Critics within the party have accused Polanski of failing to provide clear leadership during the conference proceedings. Lichtenstein stated that Polanski had not engaged with Jewish members of the party committee and described his avoidance of the debate as a mistake. Former Green leader Caroline Lucas also weighed in, initially describing the motion as dangerous and flawed, though she later softened her stance by acknowledging Polanski’s role in transforming the party and expressing hope that he would help resolve internal structural issues.
Polanski explained his absence from the vote by citing campaign duties in North London. He confirmed that he would not have supported the motion in its final form, calling it imperfect, but emphasized his belief that the displacement of Palestinians is underpinned by a racist ideology. This stance places him at odds with both supporters of the motion, who feel he lacks public backing, and critics who view the policy as untenable. The situation has created a leadership vacuum where Polanski appears to be losing confidence from multiple factions within the party.
During interviews on BBC Radio 4, Polanski faced repeated questioning about whether he believes Israel has a right to exist. He declined to give a direct yes or no answer, instead stating that no state should have the right to oppress others or commit apartheid and genocide. He argued that his commitment to equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians provided a clear response to the question. This ambiguity has further fueled frustration among longstanding party figures who describe him as missing in action on critical issues.
The internal discord reflects broader tensions within the Green Party regarding its direction and membership base. Jonathan Bartley, a former co-leader, called for Polanski to apologize but did not demand his resignation. Bartley noted that the party has experienced an influx of members from further left groups, which may be contributing to a loss of older voters and a need to detoxify the party’s brand. The current crisis represents the most significant challenge to Polanski’s leadership since he took office.
Despite the mounting criticism, Polanski appears insulated from an immediate leadership challenge due to his popularity among grassroots members. The party now faces the task of reconciling its new policy direction with electoral viability and internal cohesion. As the dust settles on the by-election, the focus shifts to how Polanski will navigate the competing demands of his base and the need for broader political appeal. The coming weeks will likely determine whether he can stabilize the party or if further fragmentation is inevitable.
The debate over Zionism and Israel has become a defining issue for the Green Party, testing its ability to maintain unity while pursuing radical policy changes. Polanski’s leadership style, characterized by a focus on grassroots mobilization, has proven effective in increasing vote shares but has also exposed vulnerabilities in managing internal dissent. As the party looks ahead, the resolution of this crisis will be crucial in shaping its future trajectory and public perception.
Observers note that the situation highlights the difficulties of leading a party undergoing rapid ideological transformation. The Green Party’s attempt to redefine its stance on the Middle East has sparked intense debate, revealing deep divisions among its members. Polanski’s insistence on remaining in power suggests he believes he can bridge these divides, but the path forward remains uncertain. The outcome of this internal struggle could have lasting implications for the party’s electoral prospects and political identity.
In the immediate aftermath of the by-election, the Green Party must address the concerns raised by both Jewish members and progressive activists. The failure to engage effectively with key constituencies has weakened Polanski’s position, even as he retains support from the base. The party’s ability to move forward will depend on its capacity to reconcile these competing interests and present a unified front in future elections. The current leadership crisis serves as a stark reminder of the challenges facing modern political movements.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗Polanski vows to stay on as Green leader as criticism mounts after by-election defeat
