Polanski begs Green activists for help as he faces defeat in Holborn by-election tomorrow amid party anti-Semitism row
Green Party leader Zack Polanski is appealing for campaign support as he faces likely defeat in Thursday's Holborn and St Pancras by-election against Labour's Sagal Abdi-Wali. His campaign has been severely damaged by controversy surrounding a "Zionism is Racism" policy motion passed at the party's conference, which prompted a police complaint and highlighted divisions within the party over anti-Semitism.
The controversial motion was put forward by Green Party member Lubna Speitan, who was described in US court documents as a "close friend" of a terrorist imprisoned for supporting al Qaida. Polanski left the conference early to campaign for the seat previously held by Sir Keir Starmer and abstained from the vote. Wales Green Party deputy leader Phil Davies resigned on Tuesday, calling the motion "idiotic" and saying it achieves nothing of practical value.
- Green leader appeals for campaign support as by-election polls turn against him
- Party anti-Semitism row over 'Zionism is Racism' motion damages campaign
- Motion proposer linked in court documents to jailed al Qaida supporter
New here? Start with this
Holborn and St Pancras is holding a by-election on Thursday to fill the Westminster seat left vacant by Sir Keir Starmer. The Green Party's Zack Polanski is running against Labour's Sagal Abdi-Wali. Polanski is expected to lose to his Labour opponent.
His campaign has been damaged by a row within the Green Party over a "Zionism is Racism" motion passed at the party's recent conference. The motion has prompted criticism and a police complaint, and has revived long-running concerns about how the party handles anti-Semitism. Polanski left the conference early to campaign and abstained from the vote.
The controversial motion was put forward by a party member whose background has attracted scrutiny, and the row has led to resignations from senior Greens. One senior figure resigned in protest, describing the motion as pointless and ineffective. The controversy has weakened the party's electoral standing during an already difficult campaign.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that Zionism is a political ideology warranting critical examination, distinct from antisemitism or prejudice against Jewish people. They contend that equating criticism of state ideologies with hatred of religious or ethnic groups improperly constrains political discourse on colonialism and self-determination. From this perspective, the party was right to articulate a clear position on an ideology that shapes Middle Eastern geopolitics and Palestinian rights.
The case against
Critics argue that declaring an entire ideological movement 'racist' in categorical terms differs fundamentally from specific policy critiques and operates at an inflammatory level. They note that such blanket language can evoke historical antisemitic tropes and is insensitive to Jewish members who view their national aspirations as legitimate. Opponents contend that the motion's divisive impact demonstrates such statements prove counterproductive to advancing Palestinian rights or building coalition support.
Art Celebrity Culture Elections Entertainment Politics World