Inside The Green Party Struggle Over Reforms Amid 'Zionism Is Racism' Row
8 min read
The fallout from the Green Party’s controversial ‘Zionism is racism’ motion has exposed deep internal divisions. Zoe Crowther and Matilda Martin report on the efforts to limit the damage
The full text runs to more than three pages but its title contains the key claim: Zionism is racism.
It also commits the Greens to supporting “the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine”, and calls for boycotts, the release of Palestinian prisoners and support for all action consistent with international law.
The motion was passed unamended at the annual Green Party Conference, which has supreme policymaking power, on 4 October by 1,002 votes – 0.4 per cent of total members – to 813. (Unlike in other parties, any Green member can vote at their Conference; they do not have to first be elected as delegates.)
Zack Polanski, its leader, was in neither column – insisting that he had instead to campaign in Holborn and St Pancras as he sought, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to replace Sir Keir Starmer in the by-election triggered by the former Labour PM’s departure.
Polanski has defended his decision to absent himself, while insisting that it binds his hands. Under the Greens’ constitution, the party’s official position is that it cannot now support a two-state solution, still less affirm Israel’s right to exist, until October 2028 at the earliest.
The damage has already been profound, exposing deep splits between an ‘old guard’ and the influx of newer members – many disaffected former Labour supporters – over the policy itself as well as Polanski’s leadership and political strategy. The party’s poll ratings are on the slide.
It is not hard to find Green figures in despair. The party is in “a very challenging place”, admits one insider in what might be termed the old guard. “It has caused a split and a significant rift.”
The controversy over ‘ZiR’ overshadowed other Conference policies, including those on the economy and nuclear power, they add. “Sadly, it’s distracting, and it’s going to distract for a long period of time.
“It’s a wake-up call to some of us who have been in the party for longer, who are progressives, we were very much pro-Palestinian but have a bit more of a realistic view and don’t want to antagonise the Jewish community… For us, we realise actually we need to organise a bit better.”
The motion has also led to significant confusion. The party has sent communications to members stating that it will “not discriminate against or exclude people holding Zionist views”, despite the wording of the motion suggesting that Zionism should be equated with other forms of racism.
Many Green councillors describe this position as “unsustainable”, with several telling The House that they have lost local members since the motion was passed. They also express concern that it will have a negative impact on their local campaigning capacity.
Martin Dimery, a Green councillor and former parliamentary by-election candidate in Somerset, says he intends to focus his campaigns on “local issues and environmental issues” in the hope of distancing his local Green group from the national party’s motion.
Senior figures say they are exploring ways to repair the damage with discussions ranging from member consultations to potential changes to party rules.
Siân Berry, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, tells The House the party should enter a “period of reflection, a period of working and finding out what the party thinks”, following a similar proposal from deputy leader, Mothin Ali.
Proposals could include citizens’ juries, wider consultations and preparing possible amendments ahead of Spring Conference 2027. However, under party rules, the motion cannot be officially amended until 2028.
Berry, one of four Green MPs who opposed the motion, says the party needs to establish its position and rebuild trust. Party figures are also discussing whether a binding online ballot could change the policy sooner, amid concerns about safeguarding Jewish institutions that identify as Zionist.
James McAsh, the Green leader of Southwark council, says: “When rules say something that maybe makes something difficult, it doesn’t make it impossible. And there’s always a way to find a solution, so long as everyone’s willing to work together on it.”
McAsh says the party’s pre-Conference position on Gaza and Palestinian rights had resonated with “hundreds of thousands of progressive voters across the country”.
However, Russell Warfield, a close ally and biographer of Polanski, warns against rushing reform to resolve a specific dispute.
“You want it to stand on its own merits, and it be the right thing to do anyway,” he says, adding that constitutional changes were “always quite contentious” within the party.
The row has also raised questions about whether the Greens can build the credibility needed to challenge Labour nationally while maintaining the possibility of working with it in a coalition government.
Some established Green figures fear the row has undermined years of work to build the trust of voters, as well as its relationship with the Labour Party at national and local level.
Andy Burnham has said Labour “cannot support a partnership with a party that holds the position that has recently been adopted”. Some Greens see this as leaving the door open to co-operation if the motion is amended or overturned.
Polanski’s rhetoric has shifted from setting Green ambitions as replacing Labour as the party of the left, towards simply attempting to push the government leftwards on Gaza, migration and the economy: a move that has not gone unnoticed or unlamented by some in the party.
It’s a wake-up call to some of us who have been in the party for longer
But Jamie Driscoll, a former Labour mayor and now Green councillor, says: “I reject the idea of dragging Labour to the left, because you will only get tinkering around the edges.”
Neal Lawson, founder of the cross-party pressure group Compass, says Labour and the Greens are “connected”: “Given the threat from the far right across the globe now, and including in the UK, we need at least an equal and opposite force from the progressive side. Dividing that and undermining that is not helpful to anyone other than the far right.”
Local Labour groups have been instructed to write to their Green counterparts seeking clarity on their position on the motion. Some council leaders, including McAsh in Southwark, where the Greens are in control with the Liberal Democrats as their junior partner, have already publicly condemned the motion. Green councillors in Lewes issued an open letter opposing the motion, while also expressing disappointment at Burnham’s call for coalitions to end.
In Sheffield, Green councillor Angela Argenzio stopped short of condemning the motion, instead warning the Labour group of the consequences of ending the coalition.
“Our responsibility goes beyond the direction you are receiving from London,” she writes. “If Labour chooses to destabilise Sheffield city council over this, Labour owns the consequences.”
At the time of writing, many other Green groups on coalition councils, such as Stafford borough council, have not yet met to agree a response.
Warfield argues Greens should resist the pressure. “If Labour wants to play politics and let local authorities collapse, then they should be allowed to do so, and they should own it,” he says.
“The Greens should show some unity on this question and not be pushed around and bullied by a larger or established party.
“Broadly, we’ve arrived at a culture where we have enough self-confidence, and the broad consensus of opinion on this is that we shouldn’t be dancing to the tune of Labour. I think we’ve arrived at that position before this particular situation, and it’s my hope that we can sort of sustain that general outlook.”
One policy working group officer who supports the motion says there was “always a minority that were never happy with Zack’s leadership and are using this [ZiR], combined with him not winning the by-election and changing fortune in the polls”.
“At the moment, there is a lot of discussion about what should the party’s overall strategy or position kind of be?” they add.
Senior Green figures have raised concerns that newer members are unfamiliar with the party’s processes and approach to co-operation. Others argue parts of the old guard find conflict “uncomfortable”.
One former member of the party’s executive says: “There has always been a part of the party [that] has tried to minimise press interest and try to keep everything quiet and sensible.”
Another veteran says the party was “maturing” as it moved from being a small party into local government, forcing councillors to make difficult trade-offs.
“Zack is more eco-populist… but you’ve got eco-socialists like Greens Organise, who are very proudly eco-socialist and organising. You’ve got more progressive/ecologist types, and with that distinct grouping, you’re going to now get more think pieces, policy processes which are quite distinct, and there’s going to be a real battle of ideas on what do the Greens stand for?”
Polanski’s leadership appears safe for now. But under party rules that mandate a leadership election every two years, he may well face a challenge next summer. It would be ironic if the motion that caused his downfall outlasted him.
