The Green Party is facing significant internal discord ahead of its conference in Brighton, centered on a contentious motion labeling Zionism as a form of racism. The motion, stemming from a faction within the party advocating for Palestinian rights, calls for the recognition of Zionism as ethnonationalism and supports the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. It also asserts that Zionism should be treated like other forms of racism by the party.
This development has exposed deep rifts among party members, with former leaders Caroline Lucas and Adrian Ramsay publicly opposing the motion. They have expressed concerns that such a resolution could alienate Jewish members and harm the party’s broader reputation. Meanwhile, some Jewish Greens have voiced alarm over the involvement of groups perceived to be sympathetic to Hamas, including Friends of Al-Aqsa, which has been criticized for a history of problematic statements about Israel and Hamas.
The debate has been further complicated by proposed amendments introduced during an online workshop, some of which have been described as extreme. These amendments include calls to classify Zionists as far-right or religious extremists subject to reporting under the government's Prevent programme, as well as condemning voluntary relocation to Israel as a form of ethnic cleansing. Such proposals have heightened tensions within the party, with concerns over rising antisemitism and the growing influence of a hard-left faction.
The motion’s main proponent is British-Palestinian artist Lubna Speitan, who has openly embraced allegations of antisemitism and support for Hamas, rejecting documented accounts of violence committed by Hamas during the October 7 attacks. Reports indicate that some members have joined the Green Party with the intent to pass this motion, a development that has unsettled parts of the party and contributed to accusations of entryism.
Party leader Zack Polanski, the only Jewish leader of a major UK political party, finds himself at the center of this conflict. While Polanski holds anti-Zionist views and has condemned Israeli actions as genocidal, many activists on the party’s hard left consider his position insufficiently radical. Polanski has indicated openness to the motion only if amended to allow for a two-state solution and to avoid discrimination against Jewish members who identify as Zionists. Critics within the party, including suspended former deputy leader Shahrar Ali, argue that Polanski has failed to adopt a stringent enough stance, fueling calls for his potential replacement at the conference.
Despite these internal struggles, Polanski sought to rally the party by highlighting successes in shifting Labour’s policies to the left, such as recent trade sanctions on West Bank settlements. He also addressed economic and environmental policies, emphasizing rent controls and other domestic issues. The party has experienced a decline in polling support this year, dropping from close to 20 percent earlier in the spring to about 10 percent, with factors including leadership controversies, accusations of antisemitism, and voter shifts back to Labour under new Prime Minister Andy Burnham contributing to the downturn.
Polanski is also campaigning to win the Holborn and St Pancras by-election on October 8, a seat long held by Labour, with bookmakers favoring Labour’s candidate. Ahead of the conference, he urged members to prioritize campaigning efforts over internal disputes, accusing Labour of attempting to undermine the Greens through election timing.
The final vote on the “Zionism is racism” motion is anticipated to take place during the conference, though Green officials have yet to confirm definitively whether procedural rules will allow it. Advocates for the motion, including Greens for Palestine, have characterized the initiative as a democratic call for justice and expressed respect for Polanski despite their differences on the motion’s details.
As the party grapples with questions about its identity and direction, the outcome of this debate may prove pivotal in shaping its future leadership and policy agenda.