Greens adopt policy on Zionism amid split among senior figures

What happened

The Green Party of England and Wales has made opposition to Zionism part of its anti-racism policy after a conference vote that divided its leadership and prompted members to seek legal advice. The decision also commits the party to supporting one Palestinian state in place of Israel.

At the gathering in Brighton, 1,022 members supported the proposal and 813 opposed it. The result gives the motion the status of official party policy under Green rules, despite public opposition from four of its five MPs.

The motion presents Zionism as support for a Jewish state organised along ethnonationalist lines. It argues that the ideology gives one ethnic group advantages through the subordination of others, and links it to the displacement, loss of rights and destruction experienced by Palestinians.

Its proposed alternative is a democratic Palestinian state covering the whole of historic Palestine, with the same rights for everyone. The wording distinguishes political ideology from religious or ethnic identity, noting that Jewish identity and support for Zionism do not necessarily coincide.

Members rejected two changes favoured by party leader Zack Polanski. One concerned the proposed single-state settlement; the other sought explicit protection against disciplinary pressure on members because of their connections with Jewish community institutions.

Polanski did not take part in the vote. He had left the three-day conference to campaign in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election in London, where he is seeking election as an MP.

The background

The debate took place following substantial growth in Green membership since Polanski became leader in September last year. Disagreement over the motion exposed differences between parts of that expanded membership and MPs who entered Parliament at the last general election.

Greens for Palestine campaigned for the proposal and urged people outside the party to join so they could help secure its debate and adoption. Some established members have expressed concern that recruits motivated principally by Palestine have less interest in the wider Green programme.

The conflict in Gaza and the argument over Zionism occupied a prominent place throughout the conference. The policy discussion itself was restricted to members, with Ellie Chowns and Caroline Lucas, the former leader and the party’s first MP, speaking against adoption.

Zionism broadly refers to the movement supporting a Jewish state, but the definition used in the motion is central to the dispute. Its supporters focused on Palestinian dispossession, while opponents objected to treating support for Jewish national self-determination as inherently racist.

Research by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research indicates that roughly two in three British Jews identify as Zionists. Jewish members of the Greens themselves hold differing views on the policy, including concern that affiliation with a synagogue or another Jewish organisation could expose them to disciplinary action.

Before the vote, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council wrote to the party opposing the proposal. They described modern Zionism as partly a response to antisemitic persecution and the need for a Jewish refuge in an ancestral homeland, rather than as a racist movement.

Their concerns extended beyond the internal debate. The organisations raised questions about Jewish members’ safety and the consequences for Jewish institutions in places where Greens hold elected office.

What people are saying

Lubna Speitan, the member who brought forward the motion, said after its adoption that supporters were challenging oppressive systems rooted in racism. She presented their position as opposition to every form of racial prejudice and discrimination, rather than an exception to that principle.

The party’s joint deputy leaders took different positions. Mothin Ali backed the proposal, arguing that its objective was a democratic state protecting everybody living there. He also rejected the suggestion that he was labelling every Jewish person who identifies as Zionist a racist. Rachel Millward expressed reservations about the wording.

Polanski, who is Jewish, said before the decision that a version of Zionism involving Palestinian displacement was racist. However, he opposed the party prescribing a final political settlement, arguing that neither the Greens nor the British government should determine that outcome.

Adrian Ramsay, Ellie Chowns, Carla Denyer and Siân Berry all publicly opposed the motion. Ramsay and Chowns expressed sadness after it passed, while Berry and Denyer offered support to Jewish members who felt targeted because of the new policy.

Denyer warned that the proposal could drive away many Jewish people. During the debate, Lucas argued that its simplified treatment of a complex issue was already contributing to Jewish members feeling frightened and excluded.

Vivien Lichtenstein, who chairs Jewish Greens, said after the vote that she might reconsider her membership. Salma Yaqoob, a supporter of the motion who previously belonged to Respect, gave a different assurance: she said expressing a Zionist belief would not lead to removal, suspension or other disciplinary treatment.

A party spokeswoman also said Jewish members would be protected, including those attending synagogues that identify as Zionist. Subsequently, Polanski, both deputy leaders and all five Green MPs signed a statement opposing discrimination and harassment and affirming that Palestinian and Jewish rights were compatible.

Outside the party, the Movement for Progressive Judaism condemned the policy as antisemitic. It argued that Jewish self-determination was a right and that members should not have to surrender that belief to participate equally in a political party. Israel’s Foreign Ministry also condemned the decision as exceeding legitimate political disagreement.

Labour Party chair Bridget Phillipson urged Polanski to reverse the position. She criticised the rejection of a two-state settlement and the implications for Jews who support Israel’s existence. The Conservative Party also attacked the vote, portraying it as evidence of a fundamental problem within the Greens.

What happens next

Responsibility for putting the motion into practice rests with the party’s anti-racism policy working group. The adopted text directs that body to handle Zionism within its usual anti-racism work, making implementation an internal party process as well as a statement about the Middle East.

Some Green members are consulting lawyers about whether the policy breaches equality law. Adam Wagner KC, a barrister involved in the case concerning antisemitism and equality-law breaches in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, said a challenge would have a strong prospect of succeeding.

Wagner’s assessment centres on the Equality Act 2010, which applies to political parties. He argued that support for a Jewish nation state, understood as a broad definition of Zionism, was likely to qualify as a protected belief, and warned that the motion risked discrimination and harassment against both Zionists and Jewish people more widely.

The conference decision does not automatically settle the contents of the Greens’ next general election manifesto. Party rules distinguish between policies approved by members and those selected for inclusion in the document on which parliamentary candidates campaign.

Why this matters

For Jewish Green members in the UK, the practical issue is how the party applies its rules to beliefs and community affiliations. The rejection of an explicit safeguard, alongside subsequent assurances of protection, puts the handling of any disciplinary questions at the centre of the policy’s consequences.

For voters, the decision concerns an alternative to a two-state settlement: one Palestinian state spanning the territory in question. It changes the official position of a British political party, not the law or governance of Israel and Palestine, while leaving four of its five MPs publicly opposed to the policy.