The UK’s largest Jewish umbrella group, the Board of Deputies, has labelled the Green Party of England and Wales a racist organisation after the party’s conference endorsed a motion describing Zionism as a racist ideology. The vote, which passed by 118 to one, has triggered a severe rebuke from Jewish leaders, prompted warnings from other political parties about future cooperation, and thrust Green Party leader Zack Polanski into his most serious leadership challenge to date. The controversy centres on a policy that the Board says brands Jewish communities with a slur and legitimises prejudice, while the Greens maintain that the resolution is a legitimate critique of Israeli policy and does not amount to discrimination against Zionists.
Greens adopt contentious Zionism policy
At the Green Party’s annual gathering earlier this month, members approved a motion that defines Zionism as “an ethnonationalist Jewish state in historic Palestine to the exclusion and/or domination of the non‑Jewish population.” The policy, which will remain part of the party’s platform until 2028, was championed by a near‑unanimous majority. The wording sparked immediate backlash from Jewish organisations, which argued that it conflates criticism of Israeli government actions with antisemitism. In a statement released shortly after the vote, the Greens’ parliamentary spokesperson insisted the party “does not discriminate against people who hold Zionist views” and rejected the Board’s characterisation of the motion as racist. The party added that the decision “will not stop us from speaking out against the genocide in Gaza and pushing for stronger sanctions against the Israeli government and its leaders,” a claim that Israel has repeatedly denied.
Jewish community’s response and condemnation
The Board of Deputies, whose president is Phil Rosenberg, responded swiftly. In a public address, Rosenberg said the Greens had “by adopting an antisemitic platform, become a racist party,” adding that “we will treat it accordingly.” He warned that the policy “brands much of our community, including our synagogues and communal organisations, with that slur” and “gives prejudice against Jews a political licence.” The Board’s motion urged all other parties to refrain from forming coalition agreements with the Greens unless the party’s local leadership formally rejected the controversial policy. The Board also issued a joint statement with the Jewish Leadership Council, asserting that “Zionism is anti‑racism, creating a refuge for Jews in their ancient homeland after millennia of persecution outside it.” This joint stance underscored the depth of concern within the Jewish community that the Green policy could normalise hostility toward Jewish identity.
Political fallout and coalition tensions
The fallout has already begun to reshape political alliances. Labour, which maintains several local coalitions with Green groups, issued an ultimatum to those partners, demanding they disown the motion or risk losing the party’s support. The warning reflects a broader unease among mainstream parties about being associated with a policy perceived as antisemitic. The Greens’ spokesman countered that the Board’s call for a boycott “fails to take antisemitism with the requisite seriousness” unless the party’s local leadership have rejected the policy and committed to overturn it. Meanwhile, four sitting Green MPs and two former party leaders have publicly criticised the motion, signalling a rift within the party’s own ranks. The controversy has also drawn attention from opposition parties, who have used the issue to question the Greens’ suitability for governing partnerships.
Leadership crisis and future prospects
Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, did not participate in the vote after leaving the conference early to campaign in the Holborn and St Pancras by‑election. In subsequent interviews, Polanski indicated he would like to amend the policy but made clear he would not overturn it, emphasising that the motion will remain party policy until 2028. His stance has been described as the “greatest crisis of his leadership so far,” according to a report published on 9 October. Polanski’s comments, including his claim that he “would not have voted for the Zionism motion,” have been met with both support and criticism. Some observers view his position as a pragmatic attempt to keep the party united, while others argue it signals an inability to confront antisemitism within the party’s ranks.
The Board of Deputies’ declaration has set a new benchmark for how political parties are judged on their stance toward Zionism and antisemitism. It raises questions about the limits of political expression when it intersects with protected characteristics, and about the responsibility of parties to distance themselves from language that Jewish leaders consider derogatory. The episode also highlights the challenges faced by parties seeking to balance progressive foreign‑policy positions—particularly regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza—with the need to avoid alienating minority communities.
Why it Matters
The dispute between the Board of Deputies and the Green Party is more than a political spat; it strikes at the heart of how democratic societies navigate the tension between free speech, political critique, and protection against discrimination. By officially branding a political party as racist, the Board has set a precedent that could influence future alliances and policy debates across the UK’s multi‑party system. For Labour, the ultimatum to its Green coalition partners illustrates the growing pressure on mainstream parties to police antisemitism rigorously, even at the cost of breaking existing arrangements. For the Greens, the crisis threatens both their electoral credibility and internal cohesion, especially as the party grapples with defining its position on Israel and Zionism. Ultimately, the outcome will shape the broader conversation about what constitutes legitimate criticism of state actions versus prejudice against a religious and ethnic group, influencing policy-making, coalition politics, and public discourse for years to come.
