Former Green leaders oppose motion equating Zionism with racism
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Former Green Party leaders Caroline Lucas and Adrian Ramsay have said they will oppose a motion due to be debated at the party’s Brighton conference, which would treat Zionism as racism. Lucas warned it could be divisive and make Jewish people feel unwelcome in the party; Ramsay said the policy was unnecessary and could undermine support for both Israeli and Palestinian statehood.
The motion defines Zionism as support for an “ethnonationalist Jewish State”, opposes Zionism and backs a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. Current leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish and has described himself as anti-Zionist, is expected to support it while backing amendments on Palestinian self-determination and protections for Jewish members.
- Lucas and Ramsay will oppose the motion.
- It would classify Zionism as racism.
- Polanski is expected to back it with amendments.
New here? Start with this
Zionism is a political movement that advocates for a Jewish state, historically focused on Israel. The Green Party is due to debate a motion at its conference that would define Zionism as support for an ethnonationalist Jewish state and classify it as racism, whilst also supporting a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine.
The motion has divided senior figures within the party. Two former Green leaders, Caroline Lucas and Adrian Ramsay, have said they will oppose it, with Lucas warning it could make Jewish members feel unwelcome and Ramsay arguing it would undermine support for both Israeli and Palestinian statehood. However, current party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish and identifies as anti-Zionist, is expected to support the motion, though he may back amendments to protect Jewish members' rights.
The debate reflects longstanding tensions within the party and broader left-wing politics about how to discuss Israeli and Palestinian rights whilst remaining welcoming to Jewish people with different political views on these issues. The dispute highlights how the same terms mean different things to different people and how Zionism remains a topic where strong feelings exist.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those supporting the motion argue that criticising Zionism as a political ideology—particularly when framed as ethnonationalist—is analytically distinct from antisemitism, and that it is legitimate to oppose political systems privileging one ethnic or religious group. They contend that Palestinian self-determination has been systematically denied and that a single democratic state would rectify historical injustice, allowing Palestinians to govern themselves. They believe that equating all criticism of Zionism with antisemitism silences necessary political discourse and that one can reject Zionism whilst respecting and protecting Jewish people and culture.
The case against
Those opposing the motion argue that Zionism represents legitimate Jewish self-determination, and that defining it broadly as ethnonationalism and equating it with racism conflates political ideology with bigotry in ways that other nations' self-determination claims are not questioned. They contend that a single Palestinian state across historic Palestine would effectively deny Jewish Israelis their own independent state, creating an asymmetry that contradicts mutual self-determination principles. They worry the motion signals Jewish members are unwelcome and that such framing proves counterproductive, alienating potential allies and entrenching conflict rather than fostering the compromise necessary for sustainable peace.
More coverage
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Greens meltdown over ‘Zionism is racism’ motion as ex-leader Caroline Lucas warns it will tell Jews they are ‘not welcome’”.