Polanski says Greens need rule changes after Zionism motion row
Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, has suggested the party needs to revise its internal rules following an anti-Semitism row sparked by a controversial motion that defines Zionism as racism. Polanski has come under criticism not only for the motion itself, which many Jewish groups view as an attack on their community, but also for his decision to skip the vote to campaign in a by-election that he subsequently lost, drawing accusations of poor leadership from within his own party.
The motion passed at the party's Brighton conference earlier this month with approximately 1,000 members voting in favour and 800 against, and now forms official party policy. Polanski acknowledged that some party members felt "let down" by his absence from the vote and admitted that the party's rapid growth to over 200,000 members has created challenges for its democratic processes. In his response, he called for party rules to evolve to give leaders "more responsibility" in setting strategic direction, though some within the party, including Green MPs and former leader Caroline Lucas, have raised concerns about potential extremism and suggested a return to the party's environmental focus.
- Green Party leader admits party rules need changing after controversial "Zionism is racism" motion passes
- Polanski skipped the vote to campaign in by-election he lost
- Party membership has surged to over 200,000 under his leadership
New here? Start with this
The Green Party passed a motion at its conference defining Zionism – the ideology supporting a Jewish state – as racism. Jewish groups view the motion as anti-Semitic and an attack on their community, although others argue that Zionism is a legitimate ideology that can be subject to critical debate. The motion was passed by a majority of voting party members at the Brighton conference.
Zack Polanski, the Green Party's leader, did not vote on the motion because he was campaigning elsewhere at the time. His absence prompted criticism from within the party, with members suggesting that the leader should have prioritised this significant vote. Polanski has acknowledged that some party members felt let down.
The Green Party has grown rapidly to more than 200,000 members, which has created challenges for its internal decision-making processes. Polanski has called for changes to the party's rules that would give leaders greater responsibility in shaping the party's strategic direction. Other senior figures in the party, including former leader Caroline Lucas, have raised concerns about the motion and suggested the party should refocus on environmental issues.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters contend the party's vitality stems from its rapidly-expanded grassroots membership exercising genuine democratic control over policy. They argue the motion represents legitimate political critique of Israeli ideology rather than antisemitism, and that Polanski's proposal to strengthen leadership authority over member-passed policy would undermine democratic participation and betray the principles that have driven the party's expansion.
The case against
Critics, particularly Jewish community leaders, argue the motion is problematic because it characterises Zionism uniquely as racist whilst not applying the same standard to other national movements, which they perceive as discriminatory toward Jewish self-determination. They contend the party's governance structures failed to prevent such divisive outcomes, and that stronger leadership frameworks with clear safeguards are needed to protect communities from policies that marginalise them.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Zack Polanski admits Greens’ rules need to change after ‘Zionism is racism’ motion as he fights to stay as leader”.