Greens back 'Zionism is racism' motion as Polanski barred from Israel
Green Party members at the Brighton conference voted 1,022 to 813 to adopt a motion declaring Zionism racist, prompting Israel to bar party leader Zack Polanski from entering the country.
Green Party members have voted to adopt a motion declaring that Zionism is racism, a decision that has triggered an immediate diplomatic response from Israel and left the party's leadership facing questions over its international standing.
The motion was passed at the party's conference in Brighton by 1,022 votes in favour to 813 against, a margin of 209. The debate and ballot took place during the party's annual gathering, where members set policy direction for the leadership. The vote makes the position official Green Party policy, rather than a statement from an individual figure or faction.
Zack Polanski, the party's leader, did not take part in the vote. His absence from the ballot was noted in the immediate aftermath, as the result drew attention both domestically and internationally.
Israel responded by barring Polanski from entering the country. The Israeli government accused the Green Party of legitimising what it described as «the destruction of the State of Israel». The ban applies to Polanski personally, according to reports, and follows directly from the conference decision.
The sequence of events has placed the Green Party at the centre of a broader dispute over how political parties define and debate Zionism, anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli government policy. The motion's wording, which equates Zionism with racism, is a formulation that has been contested in British politics for years. Its adoption as official party policy by a UK parliamentary party marks a significant escalation in that argument.
For the Green Party, the vote raises immediate practical questions. Polanski's ability to travel to Israel is now restricted, which could affect his capacity to engage with Israeli officials, civil society groups or international forums hosted in the country. The party has not indicated how it intends to handle the consequences of the ban or whether it will seek to challenge the decision through diplomatic channels.
The conference result also exposes internal divisions. More than 800 members voted against the motion, a substantial minority that suggests the party remains split on the issue. The leadership must now manage a policy position that has alienated a significant portion of its own membership while simultaneously drawing the party into a high-profile international confrontation.
Israel's reaction was swift and pointed. By accusing the Green Party of legitimising the destruction of the Israeli state, Israeli officials framed the motion not as a statement about racism but as a challenge to Israel's right to exist. That framing is likely to shape how the dispute develops in the coming weeks, both in British political debate and in international media coverage.
The Green Party has historically positioned itself as a voice for environmental and social justice causes. Its foreign policy positions have often attracted less scrutiny than its domestic agenda. The Brighton vote changes that dynamic, at least temporarily, by making the party a focal point in one of the most polarised debates in contemporary politics.
What happens next depends partly on how the party's leadership responds. Polanski has not yet indicated whether he will seek to revisit the motion, defend it publicly or attempt to clarify its implications. The Israeli ban is likely to remain in place regardless of any internal party discussion, giving the dispute a concrete and ongoing dimension.
For now, the Green Party has adopted a position that places it at odds with the Israeli government and raises questions about its leader's international mobility. The vote in Brighton was decisive but not overwhelming, and the fallout is only beginning to take shape.
6
