Green Party votes to adopt policy equating Zionism with racism

Motion passed at annual conference in Brighton calls for Israel to be replaced by a single Palestinian state

By LineZotpaper
Published
Updated
Read Time2 min
Sources3 outlets
The Green Party of England and Wales has formally adopted a policy that equates Zionism with racism and calls for Israel to be replaced by a single Palestinian state, following a vote at its annual conference in Brighton.

The motion, titled "Zionism is racism," was passed by 1,022 votes to 813, despite opposition from the bulk of the party's MPs.

The policy defines Zionism as necessarily racist because it "privileges one ethnic group on the basis of the subjugation of others." It calls for Zionism to be "treated as any other form of racism" and for a single Palestinian state to replace Israel, "with equal rights for all."

The motion specifies that it is aimed at the political ideology and practice of Zionism, "not at the religious or ethnic background of those who may identify as Zionists. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews."

The motion had been pushed by a group called Greens for Palestine, which encouraged non-party members to join the party to ensure the policy was debated and adopted.

Amendments that sought to limit the motion's impact were voted down, including one that would have prevented the policy from being used to "pressure, proscribe or discipline members based on affiliation with Jewish community institutions."

Four of the party's five MPs condemned the motion, as did former leader Caroline Lucas, the Green's first MP. Adrian Ramsay, who co-led the party before current leader Zack Polanski, said in a statement he would vote against it.

Polanski, who is Jewish, missed the vote to campaign in a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras. Asked whether he believed Zionism was racist, he told the BBC: "Well, in the motion, it is defined as the displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people. I think that is clearly racism."

Some Jewish Greens have privately expressed concern the policy could make it difficult for them to remain in the party. A poll by the group Jewish Greens found its membership was split over whether to oppose the motion, while 81% said they did not identify as Zionist.

The motion is now formal policy for the Greens in England and Wales.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The policy could alienate Jewish members and voters, and deepen divisions within the party ahead of future elections.
  • It represents a significant shift in the party's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, potentially affecting its broader foreign policy platform.
  • The move may influence public debate on Zionism and antisemitism in the UK, and could draw political scrutiny from other parties.

Background

The Green Party of England and Wales has a history of progressive stances on international issues. The party has been active in pro-Palestinian advocacy, but this is the first time it has formally adopted a motion equating Zionism with racism. The vote comes amid ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has heightened tensions around debates on Israel and Palestine within UK politics.

Key Perspectives

Greens for Palestine and motion supporters: The policy is a principled stand against what they see as a racist ideology that has enabled the displacement and subjugation of Palestinians. They argue it is aimed at a political ideology, not Jewish people. Green party MPs and former leader Caroline Lucas: They oppose the motion, arguing it is divisive, harmful to the party, and risks conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. They believe it will damage the party's reputation and alienate voters. Jewish Greens and community groups: There is concern that the policy could create a hostile environment for Jewish members, even as the motion attempts to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism. Some worry the policy could be used to target Jewish members who identify as Zionist.

What to Watch

  • Reaction from the Jewish Greens group and whether any members leave the party as a result.
  • How the party's MPs and leadership address the policy in public and whether it affects upcoming by-elections.
  • Potential scrutiny from the Equality and Human Rights Commission or other bodies on whether the policy constitutes discrimination.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.