The Green Party of England and Wales has adopted an anti-Zionist policy after members approved a motion by 1,022 votes to 813 at its conference in Brighton on Sunday 4 October. The policy defines Zionism as an ethnonationalist political project and says it should be treated as a form of racism.

The decision has been condemned by several British Jewish organisations and Israel's government, while supporters say it distinguishes a political ideology from Jewish identity and is necessary to defend Palestinian rights. Party leader Zack Polanski did not vote. A joint statement from the party's five MPs, leader and co-deputy leaders promised opposition to discrimination and harassment and said Palestinian and Jewish rights are not in conflict.

This is a story that punishes lazy language. “The Greens voted against Israel” is incomplete; “criticism of Zionism is antisemitism” is contested; and “anti-Zionism can never affect Jewish people” ignores the fears expressed by Jewish members and organisations. The policy is real, its wording matters and its effects will be judged in practice.

What the motion says

The party's official announcement says the policy opposes Zionism, which it defines as an ethnonationalist political project. It supports Palestinian liberation, the right of return, boycott, divestment and sanctions, a full British arms embargo against Israel and a single democratic state throughout historic Palestine.

That final position rejects the familiar two-state formula of an Israeli state alongside a Palestinian state. Supporters argue that one democratic state with equal rights is the just answer to occupation, displacement and unequal power. Critics argue that removing Israel as a Jewish state denies Jewish national self-determination and would leave security and collective rights dangerously unresolved.

The motion says its target is a political ideology, not a religion or ethnicity. That distinction is essential. Jewish people hold a wide range of views about Israel and Zionism; not every Jew is a Zionist and not every Zionist is Jewish. It is equally true that many Jews understand Zionism as support for Jewish self-determination and regard blanket treatment of it as racism as an attack on a central part of their identity.

Editorial illustration of an unresolved community dialogue around an empty meeting table

Who objected—and why

Reuters reported that the Movement for Progressive Judaism accused the party of making antisemitism policy. The Israeli foreign ministry said the motion denied Jewish self-determination and announced that Polanski would be barred from entering Israel. Israel also called on other British parties to condemn the vote.

Those are attributed responses, not neutral descriptions of the motion. Israel's government has its own political interest, and a party policy can be fiercely criticised without every criticism becoming an objective legal finding.

But the concerns from Jewish organisations and party members cannot be waved away as public relations. The Guardian reported that an amendment intended to prevent the policy being used to pressure or discipline members because of links to Jewish communal institutions was rejected. That raises a practical question: how will party bodies distinguish political conduct from identity, community membership or religious association?

The answer will decide whether the party's anti-racism assurances work outside a conference hall. A member should be able to criticise the Israeli government, advocate Palestinian rights or oppose Zionism without antisemitic abuse. A Jewish member should be able to discuss family, faith and communal affiliations without being treated as responsible for a foreign government's conduct. Both standards are possible. They require rules better than a factional loyalty test.

What supporters argue

Supporters place the vote in the context of Israel's conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, the enormous Palestinian death toll since the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 and decades of displacement and occupation. They reject the claim that Jewish safety requires an ethnonational state and argue instead for equal citizenship in one democratic country.

Green deputy leader Mothin Ali told Sky News before the vote that the motion defined Zionism in relation to ethnic cleansing and genocide. Israel rejects accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Britain's government has described settler conduct in parts of the West Bank as ethnic cleansing while saying the courts must determine whether other actions amount to genocide.

Those legal terms should not be deployed as emotional confetti. Genocide is a defined international crime, and ultimate findings belong to competent courts. Ethnic cleansing is widely used in law and diplomacy but is not a standalone offence with one universally settled definition. Political parties can take positions; reporting must identify allegations and denials rather than upgrading a motion into a judgment.

Why Polanski's absence matters

Polanski, who is Jewish, did not vote and was campaigning in a parliamentary by-election. Reuters said many senior figures opposed the motion. His absence has been criticised by opponents who wanted the leader to take responsibility for a decision with national consequences.

The Green Party's member-led conference can set policy against the preference of senior figures. That is more democratic than a leader writing the manifesto alone, but it also creates accountability puzzles when a controversial policy passes. Voters will reasonably ask Polanski whether he supports it, how it will be implemented and whether he would campaign for its single-state position in Parliament.

The leadership statement after the vote avoided endorsing every disputed proposition. It promised universal human rights, opposition to discrimination and continuing criticism of the Netanyahu government. Those principles are welcome; they do not answer the operational questions.

The wider British political effect

The Greens won 6% of the national vote in 2024 and have since sought to become a more influential force on the left. A policy this contentious will energise some members and alienate others. Labour, the Conservatives and Reform will use it to define the party, sometimes more aggressively than the Greens define themselves.

It may also affect Jewish voters who are critical of Israel's government but uncomfortable with a policy that treats the entire Zionist category as racist. Palestinian and Muslim voters may see the vote as a rare willingness to name what they regard as the structure behind occupation. Treating either constituency as a single block would repeat the simplification at the centre of the row.

OutOut recently covered the criminal charges concerning an alleged plot against Manchester's Jewish community. That separate case is a reminder that political debate occurs alongside a real security threat; read the confirmed facts and charges. Nothing about Israeli government policy excuses antisemitism or violence against British Jews. Nothing about antisemitic threats makes Palestinian rights optional.

What should happen now

The party should publish the full adopted text in a stable, accessible form and explain how complaints will be handled. It should set out examples distinguishing criticism of Israel and Zionism from abuse directed at Jewish people. It should also explain whether members may argue for two states without being considered supporters of racism.

Independent training and scrutiny would be wiser than asking one internal faction to police another. The party should monitor resignations, complaints and disciplinary cases, then publish anonymised data. Confidence will not be created by insisting everybody has misunderstood.

Other parties should respond honestly. Condemning antisemitism is necessary. Pretending every demand for Palestinian equality is antisemitic is not. Equally, defending Palestinians does not require telling Jewish people what Zionism is allowed to mean to them.

The OutOut verdict

The Green Party had the right to debate and adopt this policy. It also inherits responsibility for every consequence of its breadth.

Supporters are correct that Zionism is a political ideology open to political criticism, and that Palestinian dispossession cannot be excluded from the definition merely because the discussion is uncomfortable. Critics are correct that many Jews understand Zionism as national self-determination, and a policy treating the category as racism can easily become a tool for exclusion.

The test is no longer the conference speech. It is whether a Jewish Green can remain fully welcome while disagreeing with the motion, whether Palestinian voices receive serious respect, and whether complaints are judged by conduct rather than faction.

If the party cannot protect all three, its declaration of anti-racism will be an impressive label on a box it has not worked out how to carry.

Sources