Sheffield Council leader’s ultimatum after ‘shameful and antisemitic’ motion
Sheffield Labour has told the city’s Green group to publicly reject a motion passed at the national Green Party conference if their joint administration is to continue. Labour council leader Fran Belbin called the motion, titled “Zionism is Racism”, “shameful and antisemitic”; the partnership’s future now depends on whether the Greens provide the requested assurance.
Belbin said Labour had privately sought reassurance for Sheffield’s Jewish community from Green group leader Angela Argenzio, but had not received it. National Labour chair Bridget Phillipson has also said local Labour-Green arrangements should end where Green groups cannot reject the motion and urge their national leadership to reconsider it. Argenzio has previously said Sheffield Greens do not conflate Zionism with Judaism or anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
- Sheffield Labour has made a public rejection a condition of continuing the joint administration.
- The ultimatum follows a national Green Party conference motion on Zionism.
- Sheffield Greens say they distinguish anti-Zionism from antisemitism.
New here? Start with this
Sheffield City Council is run by a partnership between Labour and the Green group, which share responsibility for decisions and services in the city. Fran Belbin leads the council’s Labour group, while Angela Argenzio leads the Greens.
Zionism is a movement supporting a Jewish homeland in Israel, and people differ over how the term relates to Israeli policy and Palestinian rights. Antisemitism means prejudice or hostility towards Jewish people; criticism of Israel or opposition to Zionism is not automatically antisemitic, though some argue particular claims can cross that line.
The dispute concerns a motion adopted at the Green Party’s national conference and how Sheffield’s Green councillors respond to it. It matters because the two parties’ working relationship affects the council’s ability to govern, and because the debate touches on how political groups distinguish criticism of Zionism from hostility towards Jewish people.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Labour can argue that a motion equating Zionism with racism risks treating a diverse Jewish community’s connection to Israel as inherently illegitimate, and that its local partners should clearly reject language that Jewish residents find threatening or exclusionary. Seeking a public assurance may therefore be a reasonable way to protect community confidence and set a standard for continued cooperation.
The case against
The Greens can argue that criticism of Zionism is a political position about a national movement and Israeli policy, not necessarily hostility towards Jews, and that the Sheffield group has already said it distinguishes anti-Zionism from antisemitism. Requiring a public repudiation of a national conference motion as a condition of local government could pressure councillors to disown party debate and make the administration’s future depend on a contested interpretation of the motion.