Green Party Zionism motion: what Polanski said and why

What did the Green Party vote for?

At its conference on Sunday, the Green Party passed a motion that calls Zionism a form of racism. Party leader Zack Polanski did not participate in the vote. ¹²

The motion describes Zionism as an ideology in favour of a Jewish state organised around ethnic nationalism. It also supports establishing one democratic Palestinian state throughout historic Palestine. ¹ The available reports do not reproduce the whole motion, so they cannot answer every question about its wording or application.

What does Zionism mean in this debate?

The motion uses the term for an ideology supporting a Jewish state, then argues that this ideology is racist. Its proposed alternative is a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine. ¹

The vote has prompted public disagreement, but the reports do not describe the full range of views among Jewish people, Palestinians or Green Party members. No one political position should be treated as representing an entire community.

Why is Zack Polanski talking about exclusion?

Following criticism of the vote, Polanski said people must not be excluded from the party on account of their faith, background or connection to a religious or communal organisation. He also said members should not feel unwelcome because of where they worship. ¹

A Green Party spokesperson said the party intended to follow its conduct code and legal responsibilities under the Equality Act, and to provide a safe environment for members. ¹ Those statements address inclusion; they do not resolve the objections raised about the motion.

Who has criticised the motion, and what happens next?

More than a dozen Labour MPs complained to the equality watchdog, saying the motion raised serious concerns. Nine Labour MPs separately wrote to Sussex Police, asking it to assess whether alleged antisemitic offences at the conference might call for a criminal investigation. ¹

Police said they had received the correspondence and were considering what action, if any, was appropriate. ¹ This does not confirm that an investigation has started or that an offence took place. France 24 also reported criticism from British Jews and Israel's government, though its available report offers little detail about their responses. ²

What does this mean for an ordinary reader?

At this stage, the story concerns a political party's policy, the language used in its motion and questions about members' inclusion. Referrals to official bodies are requests for review, not findings that rules or laws were broken. ¹

The reports do not explain how the party will put the motion into practice, whether it will clarify its position or what the watchdog and police may decide. Those matters remain unsettled.