Understanding Zionism
Zack Polanski, the co‑leader of the Green party, has publicly described himself as an anti‑Zionist ahead of a party conference vote on a motion that labels “Zionism is racism.” The debate thrusts a complex historical and political concept into the public eye. Modern Zionism emerged in the late nineteenth century, drawing on centuries‑old religious yearning for a return to Zion and coalescing around Theodor Herzl’s vision of a political movement for Jewish self‑determination in response to rising European antisemitism. While the term often evokes Herzl’s brand, Zionism has always encompassed a spectrum of ideas, from secular nationalism to more inclusive visions such as the binational Arab‑Jewish state proposed by philosopher Martin Buber before Israel’s founding. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, internal debate has revolved around liberal and right‑wing, or “revisionist,” currents, with issues like settlements, occupation, and the character of Israel as an ethno‑nationalist state becoming central to political contestation. For many Jews, Zionism also represents a broader cultural project: Jewish liberation, a safe haven from persecution, a revival of Hebrew language, and a renewed sense of collective pride, especially after the Holocaust.
Criticisms and the ‘Racist’ Label
The assertion that Zionism is racism is not new, but it has gained fresh relevance amid recent conflicts. Critics, including some on the left, parts of the Arab world, and anti‑Zionist Jews like Polanski, point to three principal grievances. First, they cite the violent displacement of Palestinians during the Nakba—the catastrophe that accompanied Israel’s founding in 1948. Second, they argue that Israel has constructed an apartheid‑like system in the occupied territories, denying Palestinians the right to self‑determination and statehood. Third, they claim that Palestinian citizens of Israel face systemic discrimination within the state itself. Academic debate hinges on the extent to which early Zionist rhetoric employed the notion of a “land without people for a people without land,” a phrase used by critics to argue that Zionism was colonial from its inception. Proponents of Zionism counter that Jews have a historic presence in the Holy Land and, for many, a biblical claim to the territory as a refuge in a hostile world.
The ‘Zionism is Racism’ Motion in Context
The motion under consideration at the Green party’s conference echoes a long‑standing political slogan that gained international traction during the Cold War. In 1975 the United Nations passed Resolution 3379, which declared “Zionism is racism” and likened the “racist regime in occupied Palestine” to apartheid South Africa. Sponsored by the Arab League and backed by the Soviet Union, the resolution was supported by many developing nations but was revoked in 1991 under pressure from then‑US President George H.W. Bush. Today, the phrase remains a flashpoint. Supporters of the motion argue that Zionism institutionalises preferential treatment for Jews, creating a discriminatory hierarchy that marginalises non‑Jewish Palestinians. Opponents contend that branding Zionism as racism is antisemitic, because it singles out Jews as the only group denied the right to self‑determination and effectively delegitimises the foundation of Israel as a Jewish homeland. The war in Gaza has intensified these arguments, particularly after senior Israeli officials made overtly racist statements about Palestinian society following the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023.
Legal Perspectives in the UK
British law has indirectly engaged with the debate through employment tribunals. Two years ago, an employment tribunal ruled that the views expressed by David Miller, a former professor of political sociology dismissed by the University of Bristol in 2021, amounted to a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. Miller had described Zionism as “a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing.” The decision was upheld on appeal, highlighting that anti‑Zionist perspectives can be safeguarded as legitimate philosophical convictions. Miller, a prominent figure in the anti‑Zionist movement, has also claimed that Zionists operate as “infiltrators and subversives” across British institutions, including politics, media, entertainment, law, finance, and sport. His connections to Greens for Palestine, the group proposing the Green party’s motion, have further intertwined the academic and party politics debates. The tribunal’s findings underscore the legal complexities surrounding speech about Zionism in the UK, where accusations of racism intersect with protections for freedom of belief.
Why it Matters
The Green party’s forthcoming vote on the “Zionism is racism” motion reflects a broader societal reckoning with the historical and contemporary implications of Zionism and anti‑Zionism. As a mainstream political party, the Greens’ stance will influence public discourse, shape policy discussions on international relations, and affect how minority communities within the UK perceive their representation. The debate also highlights the tension between protecting freedom of expression—particularly for anti‑Zionist beliefs—and preventing hate speech that may target Jewish individuals. Moreover, the legal precedent set by the Miller tribunal illustrates how national laws are being called upon to navigate these fraught conversations, setting a template for future cases involving accusations of racism against political movements. The outcome will therefore resonate far beyond the party conference, informing the broader conversation about identity, justice, and coexistence in Britain and the wider Middle East.
