The Green Party’s adoption of a policy defining Zionism as racism has triggered a major political crisis, with Labour leaders and Jewish community representatives demanding that Prime Minister Andy Burnham rule out any future coalition agreement with the environmentally-focused party. The controversial motion, passed at the Greens’ annual conference over the weekend, has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum and within the Jewish community itself.
Leading figures including former Foreign Office advisor Ben Judah and ex-No 10 strategist Paul Ovenden have urged Labour to distance itself from potential cooperation with the Greens, warning that such an alliance would be both morally indefensible and electorally damaging. The timing is particularly sensitive as Green Party leader Zack Polanski prepares to contest a crucial by-election in Holborn and St Pancras, following the resignation of Sir Keir Starmer from that parliamentary seat.
Jewish Community Leaders Voice Deep Concern
Vivien Lichtenstein, chair of Jewish Greens, revealed she is contemplating leaving the party in the aftermath of the vote, expressing fears that the motion could lead to Jewish organisations—including joint Arab-Jewish groups—being incorrectly labelled as racist. Her uncertainty reflects broader anxiety within the community about the implications of the policy.
Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis responded swiftly, describing the motion as a “threat to British Jews and to Britain.” Rabbi Charley Baginsky, co-lead of the Movement for Progressive Judaism, went further, calling the policy itself “a racist policy.” Adding weight to these concerns, Sandy Ruthven, chair of Amnesty International, resigned from the Greens citing the party’s failure to confront prejudice among its ranks.
Legal expert Adam Wagner KC warned that there is a strong risk the motion violates the Equality Act 2010, potentially discriminating against individuals who hold Zionist beliefs or identify as Jewish. He argued that treating Zionism as equivalent to racism may constitute direct belief discrimination and could create a hostile environment for Jewish members.
Internal Divisions Expose Party Fractures
The controversy has laid bare deep divisions within the Green Party. Four out of five Green MPs—including Ellie Chowns, Sian Berry, Adrian Ramsay, and Carla Denyer—publicly rejected the motion, raising questions about internal cohesion under Polanski’s leadership. Chowns expressed concern that the policy “risks fuelling division and risks undermining the party’s ability to advocate effectively for justice and peace.”
In response, Polanski and his parliamentary colleagues issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to universal human rights, stating they will never tolerate discrimination or harassment. They emphasised continued opposition to what they described as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the illegal occupation, while insisting there is no contradiction between supporting Palestinian rights and those of Jewish people.
Despite the public dissent, the motion remains official party policy, though the Greens clarified that not all elected representatives are required to endorse it. This compromise has done little to assuage critics, who argue that allowing such a stance without full alignment undermines the party’s credibility on issues of equality and inclusion.
Political Fallout Intensifies Pressure on Labour
Within Labour, voices are mounting for a firm stance against any form of cooperation with the Greens. MP Luke Akehurst suggested the electorate should respond by pushing the Greens “into political oblivion,” while another anonymous Labour figure stressed that no coalition talks should proceed unless the Greens revise their position urgently. Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s party chair, labelled the decision “fundamentally wrong,” echoing Conservative claims that the Greens are “toxic to their core.”
Paul Ovenden cautioned that aligning with the Greens might backfire electorally, suggesting Labour could face attacks branding them as enablers of extremism. His warning evokes memories of the 2019 general election, where Labour suffered significant losses amid accusations of being out of touch with mainstream values.
Israel has also reacted strongly, accusing the Green Party of legitimising “the destruction of the State of Israel” through what it described as a “clear antisemitic text.” In retaliation, Polanski has been barred from entering Israel, underscoring the international ramifications of the party’s stance.
Party Defends Position Amid Escalating Criticism
Undeterred by the backlash, the Green Party maintains that its platform is rooted in anti-racism and human rights. A spokesperson reiterated the party’s long-standing opposition to the occupation of Palestinian territories, arms sales to Israel, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. They stressed that their commitment to equality and justice remains unwavering.
The motion itself declares the Greens to be an “anti-Zionist party” and states that Zionism—the movement advocating for a Jewish homeland in historic Israel—will be treated “as any other form of racism.” It also endorses a vision for a single democratic Palestinian state encompassing all of historic Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. During the conference, supporters gathered chanted slogans including “say it loud, say it clear, Zionists are not welcome here,” highlighting the charged atmosphere surrounding the debate.
While the party insists that Zionists will not be expelled, the symbolic weight of the motion has already begun reshaping perceptions of the Greens both domestically and abroad.
Why it Matters
This episode marks a pivotal moment in modern British politics, where questions of identity, faith, and foreign policy intersect with electoral strategy and moral responsibility. The Green Party’s decision to adopt a definition of Zionism as racism has not only fractured its own unity but also placed Labour under intense scrutiny regarding its willingness to engage with smaller parties whose positions may conflict with foundational principles of equality and tolerance. As the UK navigates increasingly complex terrain around issues of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and Middle East policy, the fallout from this motion serves as a stark reminder of how ideological purity can come at a high political cost—and why the boundaries of acceptable discourse in democratic institutions must remain vigilantly guarded.
