Conference Decision
At the annual Green Party gathering in Brighton on Sunday, 4 October 2026, members voted to formalise a motion that defines Zionism as a form of racism. The decision was secured with 1 022 votes in favour and 813 against, according to the conference records released by party officials. The approved policy also advocates for a single Palestinian state to replace Israel, insisting that “all residents shall enjoy equal rights”. A separate amendment intended to update other party policies in light of the new stance was endorsed, while three further proposals—including one aimed at protecting Jewish community members from disciplinary action—were rejected.
The motion, championed by the group “Greens for Palestine”, argues that Zionism “privileges one ethnic group on the basis of the subjugation of others”. It explicitly states that the critique targets the political ideology rather than individuals, noting that “not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews”. The wording will be implemented through the party’s anti‑racism policy working group, following standard procedures.
Reaction from MPs and Members
Four of the party’s five MPs have publicly condemned the new policy. Former leader Caroline Lucas, the Greens’ inaugural Member of Parliament, described the motion as “deeply troubling”. Adrian Ramsay, who previously co‑led the party, said the proposal fails to consider Israeli self‑determination. Siân Berry echoed similar concerns, while Carla Denyer, the Bristol Central MP, warned that the language “risks alienating a significant proportion of Jewish people, including those who vehemently disagree with the Israeli government”. Ellie Chowns, another Green MP, cautioned that the measure “risks fuelling division, and risks undermining the party’s ability to advocate effectively for justice and peace”.
The party leader, Zack Polanski, missed the vote to campaign in Holborn and St Pancras for an upcoming by‑election. In a BBC interview on Saturday, he defended the motion, stating: “Well, in the motion, it is defined as the displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people. I think that is clearly racism.” Polanski’s stance has prompted unease among senior Green figures who feel he could have taken a firmer position on the issue.
Internal dissent is also evident among Jewish members. A poll conducted by the Jewish Greens revealed a split opinion on the motion, with 81 % of respondents indicating they do not identify as Zionist. Some Jewish Greens have expressed private worries that the policy could make continued membership difficult. The group has indicated it will issue a public comment only after consulting its members.
Broader Party Dynamics
The vote reflects a growing tension within the Green Party between its progressive base and more centrist voices. The “Greens for Palestine” campaign encouraged non‑party supporters to join temporarily to ensure the motion reached the floor, highlighting the issue’s salience among younger activists. This tactic has sparked debate about the integrity of internal party democracy and the influence of external groups.
The policy’s adoption is likely to affect the party’s electoral prospects, particularly in constituencies where Jewish voters constitute a notable electorate. Polling suggests that a sizable portion of the electorate views the stance as polarising, potentially eroding support that the Greens have historically built on anti‑racism and social justice platforms.
International Context
The timing of the decision coincides with heightened global scrutiny of Israel’s actions in Gaza. The Green Party’s leader cited the “extent of the death toll in Gaza during Israel’s assault on the territory” as justification for the motion’s language. International human‑rights organisations have long debated whether criticism of Israeli government policies can be distinguished from anti‑Semitic discourse, a distinction the motion attempts to draw by targeting “Zionism as a political ideology”.
The United Nations and several European parliaments have recently debated similar resolutions, creating a backdrop against which the Green Party’s move can be measured. While some observers view the policy as a bold stand against perceived ethnic privileging, others warn that it may complicate diplomatic dialogue and alliance‑building on the global stage.
Why it Matters
The Green Party’s formal endorsement of a policy that equates Zionism with racism marks a significant shift in British political discourse, reverberating far beyond the party’s membership. It intensifies the ongoing debate about the boundaries of legitimate criticism of state actions versus discrimination against religious or ethnic groups. The move could reshape electoral dynamics, influence cross‑party collaborations on Middle‑East policy, and affect the lived experience of Jewish community members who feel caught between the party’s anti‑racism commitments and their own identities. As the UK approaches a general election, the policy will likely feature in broader conversations about inclusivity, free speech, and the role of ethical stances in contemporary politics.
