Green Party's Zionism vote deepens internal crisis as Jewish members weigh departure

The Green Party of England and Wales convened at its conference in Brighton over the weekend and passed a motion that has fractured the party along lines its leadership did not anticipate. By a vote of 1,022 to 813, members adopted a policy that defines Zionism as a racist ideology and calls for Israel to be replaced by a single Palestinian state in which Jews and Palestinians would have equal rights. The motion, put forward by an internal pressure group called Greens for Palestine, was framed by its sponsors as unifying. But in the hours and days that followed, the opposite became clear. Vivien Lichtenstein, who heads the Jewish Greens, announced she is considering leaving the party. Other Jewish members—a significant majority of whom, when polled, described themselves as anti-Zionists—are now taking stock of whether they belong.

The fallout has been swift and multidirectional. The chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, called the motion "poisonous antisemitism." Israel's government barred Zack Polanski, the Green Party's Jewish leader, from entering the country, and the Israeli foreign ministry denounced the decision as "a stain on the history of the United Kingdom." Four of the party's five MPs opposed the new policy. The group representing European Green parties expressed dismay, noting the motion contradicts their support for a two-state solution. Within the party itself, anger has grown toward Polanski, who was absent from the debate itself—he was campaigning in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection, where he is running for the seat vacated by former prime minister Keir Starmer.

The motion's language attempts precision. It argues that Zionism is racist because it "privileges one ethnic group on the basis of the subjugation of others" and that in Israel this system is rooted in "European settler-colonial systems of domination and oppression." The motion adds a disclaimer: it targets "the political ideology and practice of Zionism" and not "the religious or ethnic background of those who may identify as Zionists." But this distinction has not quieted the alarm. Some Jewish members fear the policy could be used to discipline them for membership in Jewish organizations with Zionist affiliations, including synagogues. A proposed amendment that would have offered such reassurance failed to gain enough support. Kieran Andrieu, a British Palestinian and one of the motion's sponsors, described it as a "unifying motion" and spoke during debate of the need to "disagree agreeably." But the unity he invoked has not materialized.

The core dispute turns on what Zionism actually means. It is not a singular, clearly defined ideology. Broadly, it denotes support for Jewish self-determination, realized today in the state of Israel. But the term encompasses vastly different political positions. A Palestinian activist defending against settler violence on the West Bank might identify as Zionist. So might a kibbutznik with socialist leanings. So might a supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu. Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland has described Zionism as a "family name"—one that requires a first name to be meaningful: socialist Zionism, Marxist Zionism, religious Zionism, cultural Zionism. According to research published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research on Monday, nearly two-thirds of British Jews identify as Zionist. For many of them, the term refers not to support for any particular Israeli government policy but to a dream or aspiration that is constitutive of Jewish identity itself—an outlook shaped by generations of persecution. The comparison to settler-colonialism that the Green motion makes is, for this reason, anathema to many.

Since the attacks of October 7, 2024, British Jews have become more likely to identify as Zionist, to consider emigrating to Israel, or to feel a close attachment to the country. Younger Jews, aged sixteen to twenty-nine, are an exception: they are less likely to say Israel is "very important" to their identity, with the percentage falling to 27 percent in 2024. Some Jewish commentators see in this a generational shift, with younger diaspora Jews appalled by Israel's actions in Gaza identifying less as Zionist than their parents.

The Green Party's senior figures have been among the most forceful voices in Britain condemning Israel's destruction of Gaza, which a UN commission of inquiry found to constitute genocide. They have also spoken against the occupation of the West Bank and pushed for a full arms and trade embargo. But the Zionism motion has overshadowed these positions entirely. Former co-leader Carla Denyer expressed concern that the motion draws attention away from what matters: "I'm concerned that elected Greens will be forced to spend our time and energy debating and defending definitions, at the expense of focusing on the essential actions that only we can take to make things materially better for people in Palestine." Polanski has said he agrees that Zionism, when defined as "the displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people," constitutes racism. Yet he did not support the safeguarding amendment, a choice that has deepened criticism of his leadership.

Legal challenges are now likely. Some Green members are consulting lawyers about whether the party has breached equalities legislation. Barrister Adam Wagner KC, who led the case that found Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party broke equalities laws over antisemitism, told the Guardian he believes such a case would have a good chance of success. Longstanding party supporters have also raised concerns that the motion was pushed by relatively new members, with Greens for Palestine having been explicit about encouraging people to join the party to support this single issue.

The immediate electoral impact of the vote is likely to be minimal. Labour is confident of winning Thursday's byelection in Holborn and St Pancras, and Polanski himself has said the outcome is a 50-50 proposition that will not affect his authority as leader. But the longer-term damage may be substantial. On the Sunday the Zionism vote passed, the Greens announced a series of key economic policies that received almost no attention. The party was approaching an electoral breakthrough, but this internal fracture now threatens to define it. Observers note that voters do not favor parties that appear mired in chaos, and the Greens may find themselves unable to move past this dispute for months, perhaps until the next general election.