Israel’s foreign ministry has barred the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Zack Polanski, from entering the country after the party’s conference adopted a motion labelling Zionism as racism. The decision has drawn sharp criticism abroad and exposed a growing split between the party’s grassroots activists and its elected representatives.
The Conference Vote and Israel’s Response
On Sunday, members of the Green Party passed a resolution that describes Zionism as an ideology backing “an ethnonationalist Jewish state” and calls instead for a “single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine”. The motion was proposed by rank‑and‑file members and carried despite Polanski’s attempt to amend it; he did not take part in the debate or the vote.
Israel’s reaction was swift. A statement from the foreign ministry announced that Polanski would be denied entry, describing the motion as “unacceptable” and accusing the Greens of promoting antisemitism. While the party’s leadership has long been vocal in its condemnation of Israel’s war in Gaza, the ban marks the first time a Green leader has been personally barred by the Israeli state.
Divisions Within the Party
The vote has highlighted a tension that has been simmering since Polanski’s election as leader. Many grassroots members, energised by his broader left‑populist agenda, backed the motion, seeing it as an extension of the party’s anti‑imperialist stance. Yet the elected wing remains largely opposed. Of the five Green MPs, four voted against the resolution, with Adrian Ramsay – former co‑leader and MP for Waveney Valley – being the most outspoken critic.
Jewish Greens’ chair has warned she may resign if the stance is not reconsidered, signalling that the dispute could push some members away from the party altogether. The episode shows how the party’s internal democracy, which allows conference motions to become policy, can place elected officials at odds with the very membership that put them in office.
Implications for Electoral Reform
The controversy also touches on a separate but related debate happening inside Labour. At its recent conference, Andy Burnham announced plans for a national commission on electoral reform, hinting at a shift toward a more proportional system. Under such a arrangement, the Greens could expect to gain additional seats, making them a natural ally for Labour in a potential hung parliament.
However, Labour’s own senior figures have denounced the Green motion. Bridget Phillipson, the party chair, called it “shameful”, while Communities Secretary Angela Rayner said it “crosses a line and is rightly being condemned across the political spectrum”. This backlash may strengthen opposition within Labour to Burnham’s reform programme, as some members worry that aligning with a party seen as endorsing antisemitic rhetoric could damage Labour’s credibility.
Why it Matters
The Green Party’s vote on Zionism is more than a symbolic gesture; it reveals a fundamental clash between activist‑driven policy and parliamentary reality. While the motion reflects the growing influence of a more ideologically driven base, it also risks alienating the elected officials who must work within existing political institutions and maintain relationships with other parties. The fallout could affect the Greens’ electoral prospects, shape Labour’s approach to electoral reform, and test whether the party can reconcile its internal democracy with the need for coherent, electable politics. How the Greens navigate this rift will determine whether they can translate activist enthusiasm into lasting political influence or whether the split will undermine their recent gains.
