The Green Party of England and Wales have passed a motion to classify Zionism as Racism. In doing so, they may have politically ostracised themselves. They now stand in a corner, from where constructive talks on Palestine policy with political allies will prove difficult.
The vote, taken on Sunday, 4 October 2026, at the Green Party’s annual conference in Brighton, passed 1,022 to 813. While there is an increase in support for Palestinian statehood in government, this motion is the first of its kind in the UK. The Labour Party have become more sympathetic towards the Palestinian issue and condemn levels of destruction in Gaza, although their influence mostly lies in arms policy, and they are, of course, still selling arms to Israel. Labour claims the Greens have crossed a line. Most Parties have come forward to condemn the motion, which sits at the radical edge of UK politics.
Not the First of its Kind
Internationally, however, this has a precedent. In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, determining that ‘Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination’. It called Zionism a threat to world peace and security. The Assembly framed this as part of an effort to eliminate all forms of Racial Discrimination. This Resolution was revoked in 1991.
What speaks for it?
The motion’s reasoning deserves a fair review. The motion targets an ethnonationalist state rather than the Jewish identity.
Zionism is understood by many Jews, as the right to a safe haven and self-determination. Supporters of the motion argue that in practicality, it depends on the dispossession of other peoples, particularly Palestinians. On this view, Israel functions as an ethnonationalist state. This is a legitimate stance and should not be dismissed or confused with antisemitism. The Green Party urges the distinction between Zionism with Judaism. It attacks a political ideology not a religious identity.
Terminology that crushes Communication Channels
Concerns with the motion start with the definition. Is it smart to base a Party policy on a publicly ambiguous definition?
The Greens treat Zionism and Judaism as separate and distinct. Others do not. To some, Zionism is a core element of Jewish Identity. To others it is restricted to the state of Israel. And some consider these two inseparable. The point is that these definitions change the whole discussion.
If the definition is so contentious, then why go there? Less fought over language exists, that can express a hard-line Party stance on genocidal intent and illegal occupation. A policy built on a term with no agreed meaning is simply not politically sensible. The Party’s desire to draw a line is clear. But where that line falls is not clear to many. A motion that draws a red line, hinging on a definition that lacks broad agreement, risks closing channels of discussion to both sides. The topic was long taboo. Now it is open for discussion and the Greens have already positioned themselves in the far corner. Isn’t it better to engage in discussions others can join without isolating yourself first?
Internal Divisions sabotaging a united stance on Palestine
The motion has exposed harsh internal divisions that are undermining the Party’s stance. Zack Polanski, Party leader, has not supported the motion and did not attend the vote. Vivien Lichtenstein, chair of the Jewish Greens, said she is now considering leaving the Party. Phil Davies, Green deputy leader in Wales, resigned and cancelled his membership.
This weakens the Party’s stance. It is dividing its own membership. Members who have been sympathetic to the Palestinian cause will now potentially turn their back on it. The motion risks sabotaging a clear objective to stop all support for the far-right Israeli government, especially arms support.
One major concern is the effect on Jewish members. According to the Greens, Jewish members with Zionist associations will not face any disciplinary action. Zack Palanski’s statement made this very clear. The way the motion is phrased it does not affect internal disciplinary procedures. Practically, this makes sense, but it seems incoherent to many. The Greens have pledged to eliminate racism in their Party. If a member supports ideas that they define as racist, how can they promise not to enact disciplinary action in response?
The answer lies in the definition. The Greens define their own definition of Zionism as Racism, which hinges on the oppression of Palestinians by an ethnonationalist state. Incoherence can be attributed to the concerns over definition ambiguity.
To what end?
The Greens have ostracised themselves over a policy that doesn’t further the fight of the Palestinian people. As they are not the governing Party, their influence lies in asserting pressure on the Labour Government. This motion fails to do that effectively. By prematurely taking a stance that will generally be dismissed as radical, they have undermined their ability to apply pressure and put forward their demands.
Talk about a one-state solution does not help either. The Israeli state already exists. The focus should now be to establish a Palestinian state. They will not be able to facilitate or participate in a conversation of peace if they are politically ostracised.
Where the Greens should position Themselves
The Green Party must find unity and stand firmly in their policy against racist Israeli policies, together. High level Jewish Greens share the condemnation of the Israeli government. If the term Zionism as Racism cannot be agreed on, then perhaps the term is not carrying the meaning intended. They must not allow their members to turn their backs on the cause entirely.
A central focus on their shared positions is a good start. This means, focus on pressuring the Labour government with there demands: the recognition of the Palestinian people, a red line on working with the Israeli government, and an immediate stop to arms deals.
