Following the Greens’ strong showing in the February byelections in Gorton and Denton, where the party surpassed 20% of the vote, leader Zack Polanski appeared poised to usher in a new phase for the party. However, recent developments have raised concerns among some members that the Greens may now be facing significant internal and electoral challenges.

At the center of the controversy is a party motion passed during the Greens’ largest conference to date, which labels Zionism—the movement advocating for a Jewish state—as a form of racism and calls for Israel to be replaced by a Palestinian state. This policy shift has sparked intense debate both within the party and beyond, provoking criticism from various quarters and leading to visible dissent among Green lawmakers.

While the Greens operate as a direct democracy, with members collectively deciding policy, Polanski’s role as leader is limited to a single vote on an executive committee of around two dozen members. Nonetheless, as the public face of the party, he wields informal influence. Critics argue that Polanski has failed to exercise this influence effectively, especially given the concerns raised about the influx of new activists since his tenure began. Membership has more than tripled, with many newcomers reportedly motivated primarily by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and aligned with the Greens for Palestine group, which was instrumental in tabling the contentious motion.

Opponents of the motion contend that the process was manipulated by encouraging non-members to join the party specifically to support adopting this policy, a tactic which some label as entryism. However, only a small fraction of the membership—around 0.4% or approximately 1,022 members—voted in favor. The motion ultimately passed by a narrow margin of 209 votes.

Polanski has drawn particular criticism for his handling of the controversy. He abstained from voting on the motion and chose to campaign in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection rather than engage directly in what has been described as the party’s most divisive internal debate in years. This stance has strained relations within the party, with four of the five Green Members of Parliament opposing the new policy despite their broader criticism of Israeli policies.

The fallout from the motion has overshadowed other aspects of the conference and is expected to continue affecting the Greens’ public image and electoral prospects. Legal challenges based on equality laws have been anticipated, adding another layer of complexity.

Political analysts warn that the party’s association with this motion may limit its ability to expand its voter base at a critical juncture. Robert Ford, professor of politics at Manchester University, suggested that the impact will be detrimental to the Greens’ ambitions, urging a reversal of the policy to improve future electoral prospects.

Concerns within the party now point to Polanski as a pivotal figure who must address the deep divisions and steer the Greens through this defining moment. His response in the coming months will likely influence the party’s trajectory in upcoming elections.