Green Party vote on Zionism exposes sharp divisions at conference
Constantvpn.com – Green Party members have approved a conference motion describing Zionism as a form of racism, following a closely contested vote that revealed major differences among some of the party’s leading figures.
The proposal passed by 1,022 votes to 813 at the party’s Brighton conference. Members also endorsed support for a “single democratic Palestinian State” across historic Palestine, after rejecting changes supported by party leader Zack Polanski.
The decision has prompted concern from Jewish organisations and renewed debate within the party about how it can support Palestinian rights while ensuring Jewish members feel safe and included.
What the motion says
The adopted text characterises Zionism as an ideology supporting “an ethnonationalist Jewish state”. It argues that its practical impact has involved the “historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians”.
It also commits the party to advocating for one democratic Palestinian state throughout historic Palestine. Supporters presented that position as a call for a political arrangement in which everyone living in the territory would have equal rights.
Deputy leader Mothin Ali, who supported the motion before the vote, said it envisaged a democratic state that protected every person living there. He stressed that he was “absolutely not” saying that all Jewish people who identify as Zionists are racist.
Leader’s proposed changes defeated
Polanski said on Friday that, under the definition set out in the motion, he believed Zionism was racism. However, he had sought to alter the reference to a single Palestinian state.
I don’t believe we as a Green Party of England and Wales, or even the British government, should be deciding what the future settlement looks like.
He also backed wording intended to prevent the motion being used as a basis for disciplining Jewish members who attend synagogues that identify as Zionist. Conference delegates rejected both of the amendments he favoured.
Polanski did not take part in the vote because he left the conference early to campaign in Holborn and St Pancras, where he is seeking election as an MP. He has not set out whether he personally supports the final version approved by members.
Nevertheless, he joined the party’s five MPs and deputy leaders in a statement pledging that the Greens would remain “an anti-racist party in every way”. The statement said there was “no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people”.
Jewish groups raise concerns
The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council had written to the party before the vote, arguing that Zionism should not be defined as racist. They described it as an anti-racist movement shaped partly by the experience of antisemitism, and said modern Zionism developed as an effort to create a refuge for Jews in their ancient homeland after centuries of persecution elsewhere.
The organisations also warned about the possible effect on Jewish Green Party members and on Jewish institutions in constituencies represented by Green politicians. Their intervention reflected a wider disagreement over the meaning of Zionism, a term used by people with differing political, religious and cultural views.
After the result, Green Party chair of Jewish Greens Vivien Lichtenstein said she could reconsider whether to remain in the party. A party spokeswoman said Jewish members would be protected and would not face persecution for attending synagogues that describe themselves as Zionist.
Senior figures disagreed publicly
The issue has dominated discussion during the three-day gathering, taking place amid increased party membership since Polanski became leader last year. It has also shown that senior Greens do not share a single view on the wording or its political consequences.
Rachel Millward, the party’s joint deputy leader alongside Ali, called the formulation “problematic”. Three of the party’s five MPs — Ellie Chowns, Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer — had publicly opposed the proposal before members voted.
Denyer said the motion could risk “alienating a significant proportion of Jewish people”. Chowns and former party leader Caroline Lucas both argued against it during the conference debate.
I think there is no single definition of Zionism and, irrespective of the intentions of those who put that motion, I think there is a real risk that it will be divisive and could be seen as a sign that Jewish people aren’t welcome in the party.
Those criticisms focused not only on the conflict in Gaza and the future of Israel and Palestine, but also on the consequences of adopting language that some Jewish members regard as challenging their place within the party.
Political implications
The vote establishes a formal policy position approved by Green Party members, but it does not resolve the internal arguments surrounding it. The failure of Polanski’s amendments means the party must now explain how its commitment to Palestinian rights will operate alongside its stated responsibility to combat antisemitism and protect Jewish members.
The debate also illustrates the limits of broad labels in a politically and emotionally charged subject. For supporters, the motion is a response to Palestinian displacement, inequality and loss of political rights. For opponents, its language may encompass Jewish people and institutions whose understanding of Zionism is connected to identity, safety or self-determination rather than racism.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry criticised the motion after it passed, saying it went beyond “the boun…”
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Green Party members back Zionism is racism?
Green Party members back Zionism is racism is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does Green Party members back Zionism is racism matter?
Green Party members back Zionism is racism matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.