Will Green Party members vote to call Zionism racism?

The lead up to this year’s Green Party conference has been unusually dominated by a single motion. Titled ‘Zionism is Racism’, it’s – as you would expect – provoked fierce debate within the party.

LFF has had dozens of conversations with party members about this motion, finding similarly dozens of different perspectives on its merits and its potential impact on the party’s electoral prospects.

Unlike most other political parties, motions debated at the Green Party’s conference actually matter. Motions that pass don’t just act as a reflection of the party membership’s mood. Rather, they become the party’s formal policy platform.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that everything agreed by a party conference will enter a general election manifesto. But it does become the part of the Greens’ vision for how they will seek to transform the country and the wider world.

What does the Zionism is Racism motion say?

Sometimes motions debated at Green Party conference have eye-catching titles but are slightly more mundane when you delve into the detail. A few years ago, members endorsed one called ‘Abolish Landlords’.

That motion didn’t commit the party to legislate to make renting out a house a illegal, Instead, it proposed a series of measures the Green Party would adopt – including rent controls, mass council house building and ending the right to buy scheme – which would seek to phase out the amount of private landlordism in the housing sector over time.

The ‘Zionism is Racism’ motion is different. It very much does what it says on the tin.

It begins with a definition of Zionism: “a political ideology which called for the creation – and, now it exists, the continuity – of an ethnonationalist Jewish State in historic Palestine to the exclusion and/or domination of the non-Jewish population.”

It then continues by arguing: “The real, material manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians. This is based upon European settler-colonial systems of domination and oppression, which has also created racial hierarchies between Jews of different ethnicities in Palestine.”

This goes well beyond the Green Party’s existing policies on Israel. Presently, the Greens support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, proscribing the Israeli Defence Forces as a terrorist organisation, and ending military cooperation with Israel. The party has also passed motions which argue that Israel practices apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians, and that its actions in Gaza since 2023 constitute genocide.

What makes this motion different is it deals not with the actions of a particular Israeli government, but instead takes on the existence of the state of Israel itself.

In that regard, the motion seeks to do something significant beyond defining Zionism as a racist ideology. It seeks to shift the Green Party’s policy to support “the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, equal rights for all, and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants.”

This would see the party endorse a ‘one-state solution’, rather than it’s current, less concrete position. The party’s policy currently reads: “a solution may be achieved in one state or two within the former Palestine mandate (hereinafter referred to as Palestine), but as a matter of fact is achieved in neither. A fair choice needs to be made and accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians for their common future in Palestine. Exclusive possession of Palestine by either side is never going to be an achievable and just solution.”

What’s the case for the Zionism is Racism motion?

LFF spoke to Lubna Speitan, the lead proposer of the motion on why she’s bringing it to the conference, and why she thinks it’s important the Green Party adopts it.

“As a Palestinian whose family has been slaughtered in this current genocide and ultimately trapped in the slaughterhouse and the Israeli occupation, and now to sit here and witness our erasure – what else can we do but speak and confront the oppressive systems and hierarchies and establishments that have done this to us?”, Speitan told LFF.

She would later go on to add: “This motion is merely a means of identifying the root cause of the problem, which is the racist ideology of Zionism – a settler colonial ideology – and its practice, which is resulting now in our erasure. Under Israel, Palestinians do not have rights. There is no such thing as equal rights under Israel’s boot. What we are asking for is for our mere basic human rights to be acknowledged.”

These arguments are common among supporters of the motion. Asma Alam – campaigns coordinator on the Green Party Executive (GPEx) – made similar comments.

She told LFF: “At first glance, the title of this motion will make some people flinch. It sounds controversial. But is it really? Read it, and the question is simple: how can we call Israel an apartheid state committing genocide, then refuse to name the ideology behind it?”

She continued: “Passing this motion would make official what many of us have known all along: the Green Party is anti-Zionist. We have called for boycotts, divestment, sanctions and a full arms embargo from the start. Palestinians need us to find our backbone.

“Greens can lead here, and the political establishment can follow. Some may not see it yet, but I think it will feel like a breath of fresh air; we’ll wonder why we spent so long whispering. I remember when E05 [the Zionism is Racism motion] passed; even then it was controversial, but we gave our MPs a voice.”

Alongside setting out her arguments on the ideology of Zionism, Speitan also explained why she believes the conclusion of this analysis means that the Green Party should adopt a position in support of a ‘one-state solution’. She told LFF: “Israel is not a state that has any legal, moral or ethical right to exist. People do. And when we say this and we’re putting this motion forward and we reiterate continuously that we’re calling for equal rights under a Palestinian state.”

What do the Zionism is Racism motion’s opponents say?

While the motion has many, many supporters within the party, there are also plenty of members who have significant concerns about it.

Joshua Alston is policy officer for Jewish Greens, and describes himself as a ‘committed anti-Zionist’. Yet, he told LFF that he has “serious concerns that this motion will have discriminatory impacts”.

Joshua Alston’s biggest concerns are around the impact it could have on Jewish members. He told LFF: “One concern centres around Synagogue membership. Jewish people are members of synagogues (like Christians are members of churches) and these Synagogues are part of Jewish denominations (like churches are part of Catholicism or the Church of England). Most Jewish denominations describe themselves as Zionist.

“The motion states we should treat Zionism ‘like any other type of racism’. Following that logic through as we don’t allow people who are members of self-described racist groups to be part of the party, it follows that we wouldn’t allow people who are members of self-described Zionist groups, such as Jewish denominations, to be members of the party.”

Whether that is precisely how the motion is implemented, Joshua Alston still argues that there could be ramifications for Jewish members. He said: “It would certainly put Jews who are members of a synagogue in a position where they are assumed to be Zionist and have to then prove otherwise, which would be different to how non-Jewish members of the party are treated.”

He went on to add: “Over the past few years the Green Party has unprecendented success holding the government to account for its complicity with Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and other human rights abuses across the region.

“We’ve had this because we’ve been able to tackle insinuations that we are antisemitic by a relentless focus on what Israel is doing and what we can do to stop it. If we pass this motion that will compromise the good work we’ve already done by allowing us to be framed as antisemitic. It would damage Jews in the party and be a massive step barrier to articulating our anti-Zionist criticisms of Israel.”

Joshua’s brother, Sam Alston. is the secretary of Jewish Greens. He made similar arguments, but put them in much stronger terms. He told LFF: “In its current form it is the most disastrous motion that has ever had a chance of passing at conference. Jewish members will face the risk of having to defend synagogue membership in the party’s disciplinary process. We will abandon opposing colonisation and genocide in Palestine to focus on interrogating internal ideological differences.”

The Alstons’ views are only there own, and do not reflect the overarching view of Jewish Greens, which does not have a position on the motion. Indeed, there are many members of Jewish Greens – including members of its committee – that do not share them, and there are members who in fact support the motion.

How do the Zionism is Racism motion proposers respond to the criticism?

These arguments are resolutely rejected by the motion’s proposers and supporters.

Speitan told LFF: “We’ve said in the motion that Zionism should be dealt with as [with] any other form of racism”, before later adding: “not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jewish”.

These sentiments were echoed by Alam who told LFF: “Zionism is a political ideology. Jewish people are not.”

Responding specifically to the concerns about synagogue membership, Speitan said: “When they’re talking about the synagogues, we have no problem with people and their faiths, whatever faith they come from. But what we do have a problem with is people using their faith centres to use as a front to hide behind those that are committing war crimes.

“For example, there are synagogues who are known to fund the IOF [Israeli Occupation Forces]. They are funding war criminals committing a genocide. There are synagogues that put their children through schooling to train them to become the next IOF.”

She continued by adding: “Actions must absolutely be taken against those synagogues, and it should be the duty of any member who is part of that synagogue to take that action.”

Later, she made a comparison between the approach the motion’s proposers are suggesting be taken towards synagogues with that which would be taken towards mosques. She told LFF: “Imagine if as a Muslim we had attended mosques that were funding ISIS. Let’s pose the same question. Why is there a double standard when it comes to us?”

When asked whether the motion would see the concerns raised by the Alstons’ realised – ie, whether Jewish members would face disciplinary action for attending synagogues that are affiliated with denominations that describe themselves as Zionist, Speitan said: “We would like them to take actions to sever their relations and ties between a racist ideology, and Zionism in all its forms does not recognise Palestinian rights – that’s the bottom line.

“So it will indirectly or directly still be continuing to fuel apartheid and genocide, because it is the belief that Jews have a right to our land at the exclusion of our rights, at the exclusion of Palestinians. Why should that be accepted?

“This has been the problem for far too long and needs to be addressed. And this should come from all Jewish allies who truly oppose racism and genocide”.

Where do the party’s leaders and prominent figures stand on the Zionism is Racism motion?

Ultimately, it is up the party membership to determine this. Collectively, they are the ones with the votes.

However, at previous conferences, the stances of the party’s leadership, elected representatives and other prominent figues have a significant influence on how these votes turn out.

Suffice to say that on this motion, they have been cagey about commenting publicly. Any comments they have made have tended to be measured, reserved and noncommittal.

That notwithstanding, we have had some indication as to their position.

The party’s leader Zack Polanski was asked specifically about the issue in an interview with Zeteo UK. In that interview, Polanski said: “The problem with the label Zionism, as with any label, is that it means different things to different people. Now I think it’s pretty clear that if what you’re talking about as Zionism is this Israeli government is carrying out in the name of Zionism which is the genocide and displacement of Palestinian people, then of course that’s quite obviously racist – it’s a genocide – I don’t think it’s a big jump to say it’s racist.

“There are two problems I have with the motion and if it were amended then I think it would make a better motion.

“One amendment is around safeguarding Jewish people. Now I know that the proposers of the motion when it’s been talked about have said there’s nothing in the motion that attacks Jewish people or is a problem for Jewish people. And you know what? I probably agree with that.

“But I also think as a Jewish person who has shown solidarity with the Palestinian people, I would hope that our Green Party conference shows solidarity with Jewish people. And actually, within that motion if you can say very clearly and explicitly this motion safeguards Jewish people.

“And what it means by that is if someone stands against the occupation, stands against the apartheid, and stands against the genocide but happens to be a member of a synagogue that calls itself a Zionist synagogue they should not be treated any differently within in the Green Party. This should definitely not be about finding Jewish people and creating a barrier and bar in order to be a member of the Green Party.”

Alongside this, Polanski said he had concerns about the party endorsing a single Palestinian state. An amendment has been submitted to the motion which would remove the commitment to a ‘one-state solution’, and instead state in its place: “In line with our commitment to selfdetermination, we recognise that the Palestinian people themselves must be free to decide the constitutional form of that solution (for example one democratic state, two states or a confederal arrangement).”

However, Polanski would not commit to saying he would vote for or against the motion.

Similar statements have been made by other parts of the leadership team, and other elected representatives.

Speaking to LFF at TUC Congress, one of the party’s deputy leaders Rachel Millward said: “I could not be more proud than I am of this party, of our MPs, of all the spokespeople for being so absolutely clear about the genocide in Gaza and the illegal actions of the Israeli government.”

She went on to say that she didn’t want to get caught up in debates about ‘semantics’. She told LFF: “To be honest, the semantics of it are secondary to that”, and later added: “Semantics are complicated things. People mean different things when they use the same words.”

Like Polanski, Millward did not specify whether she would be voting for the motion.

One of the few senior Green Party elected representatives who was willing to speak to LFF about the motion was Hackney mayor Zoë Garbett, who struck a similar tone to Polanski and Millward.

She told LFF: “We were the first party to call the war in Gaza a genocide. We have consistently called for an end to the occupation of Palestinian and Syrian land, and for the end of arms sales.

“This motion is creating a debate within the party, with lots of people with a range of views standing up for what they think is right. That is part of our party’s democratic process, and we welcome that.

“My personal view is that there is a really strong principle underpinning the motion, but also the amendments have raised some important concerns that need to be addressed. Conference will hear and vote on the amendments, and decide on the final motion based on that democratic process; I look forward to engaging with that process.

“We should be wary of forgetting the core issue here; that what has happened and continues to happen in Palestine is a genocide, and the UK must do more to end its complicity in violence across the world.”

Will members vote for the Zionism is Racism motion?

This is the million dollar question. And until some time on Sunday – when members are likely to vote on the motion – it’s very difficult to know.

What we do know though is that the motion is heavily contested, with the membership holding an extensive array of views on it. One of the recurring concerns you hear from members – whatever their views on the motion as a whole, or the amendments – is that the motion has been polarising.

Rosi Sexton, a former councillor who came second in the party’s 2020 leadership election, for example, told LFF that the motion was “needlessly divisive”, saying that she would have wanted to see a motion that had “the maximum possible support both from our party membership and actually from the population more generally”. She added that she thought “the purpose of a political party is to make change – the purpose of a political party is not to be correct”.

The proposers are keen to stress that they don’t see the motion as divisive, pointing to the fact that it has more than 700 supporters listed as co-proposers.

Speitan told LFF: “I think the record-breaking number of supporters have spoken on that. This is not a matter of division. We are very far from divided. In fact, there has never been a more unifying motion […] ever brought to the Green Party.”

She later added: “And if there should be division, then the only division that there should be [is] the racists from the anti-racists. There is no in between.”

When LFF spoke to Millward earlier this month, she also made the case that whatever the outcome of the motion, the party remained united in its position on Palestine. She said: “Whatever happens it is very striking how united we are as a party over this issue. If we have different opinions on semantics, we do not have different opinions on the politics here and that’s an incredibly striking thing. I haven’t heard anybody who thinks that we should be being a bit softer in the way we’re speaking about Netanyahu for example. So there is actually unity.”

Whether the proposers are succesful in convincing the membership that the motion is indeed not divisive may be key to its fate.

Another factor at play is whether the membership at large perceives the motion as a shift in the nature or the degree of the party’s attitude towards Israel. Supporters of the motion have made the case to LFF that the motion is simply the natural conclusion of its existing policies, Opponents argue it takes the party in a fundamentally different direction.

The amendments to the motion may prove crucial to this – especially now they have the backing of senior figures within the party.

They might not be though. And the truth is it is virtually impossible to make an informed assumption – not least because we know very little about the thousands of Green Party members who will descend on Brighton for the conference this weekend. The party hasn’t yet held an in-person conference since the membership ballooned to more than 200,000 in the aftermath of Polanski’s ascent to the leadership. What they think, how they behave, what their views are – that’s all yet to be seen, and this weekend will give us the first indication of all that.

Whichever way the votes go this weekend – on the motion as a whole, and on the amendments, it will no doubt be hugely consequential for the future of the party, and tell us a lot about what it’s now mass membership are all about.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

Image credit: Jon Craig – Creative Commons