Green Party members descended on Brighton on Friday (2 October) for the party’s annual conference. As well as gathering to listen to speeches by the party’s leadership team and its MPs, members will vote on motions which are designed to change, update or introduce party policies.
On Sunday, one of the most controversial of those motions is set to be debated. Motion E02 titled “Zionism is racism” aims to establish the Greens as an anti-Zionist party. The motion states: “This motion is aimed at the political ideology and practice of Zionism, as defined, and not at the religious or ethnic background of those who might identify as Zionists.”
It introduces a range of other changes to the party’s stance on Gaza, including changing party policy to explicitly backing the establishment of a single Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital and equal rights for all. (The Green Party has historically supported a two-state solution). It has been incredibly divisive: defining Zionism is highly contentious and emotional. It goes to the heart of Jewish identity, trauma and sovereignty. As an ideology, it is also very hard to define.
The New Statesman has spoken to several Jewish members of the Green Party, on the condition of anonymity so that they could speak freely. They are split over the motion. To some, establishing the Greens as anti-Zionist is the right thing to do. They suggest the response to the motion has been overblown. To others the motion is antisemitic and, should it pass, it will inflict moral damage on the party they once thought welcomed the Jewish community. Others still, who would describe themselves as anti-Zionist, still believe passing the motion is the wrong decision owing to the electoral problems it could cause for the Greens further down the line.
Jewish Greens, the affiliated group which represents the Jewish community within the Green Party, is equally split and, as such, has not assumed a distinct position on the motion. In a survey of their members, released on the first day of the party’s conference, Jewish Greens found “opinions on the motion Zionism is Racism (E02) are very divided within the group, and therefore Jewish Greens will not be taking an official conclusive position on it”.
Even among anti-Zionist Jewish members, opinion is split. One Jewish member, who identifies as an anti-Zionist told the NS: “I support [the motion] with caveats.” They added: “I do fundamentally believe that Zionism is racism, and I feel comforted by the work that the drafters have done around it.”
They argued that Zionists wouldn’t have to leave the party if the motion passes, pointing to the fact that it is an E motion and therefore does not materially change party disciplinary proceedings. The member said they think concern around the motion has been “hyped up” by those who oppose it. They said that though the response from the motion’s proposers, the non-affiliated splinter group, Greens for Palestine, had at times been “defensive”, they could see why. “I wish they hadn’t been so defensive,” the member said, “but I understand why they were.”
Another Jewish member who identifies as an anti-Zionist said that they have “no problem” with the motion as a Jewish member of the party. “In fact, I welcome the distinction between Zionism and Jewishness or Judaism when Jewish communal leaders, the media and many politicians tend to conflate these things,” they said.
Still, they told the NS that even they hope, once the conference is over, that the party will “spend less time talking about it”. They said: “I actually joined the Green Party because of their health and environmental policies, not to argue about Zionism, but felt that it was important as a Jewish member to stand up against the claim that calling Zionism racist is antisemitic.” One Jewish member, who is in favour of the motion, told the NS that they think it will pass: “Some people will leave, some people will join, some people will be upset, and some people will be happy. And then we can move on to other things.”
Other Jewish members feel passionately that the motion is antisemitic. “It makes me feel ignored,” said one Jewish member, “because the Greens are meant to be a party of justice, and the drafters of this motion are ignoring the fundamental basis of social justice.” Another Jewish member described themselves as “very against it for various reasons” including the motion’s call for the Green Party to adopt a policy of a one-state solution “without any engagement with the people who actually live there”. The optics of the party passing this motion three days out from the third anniversary of the 7 October attacks are certainly damning.
The member also worried that by adopting a party policy that Zionism is racism, the Greens could open up its Jewish members to being “accused of Zionism and being frivolously dragged through the disciplinary system”. Zack Polanski – the party’s leader – has suggested amendments to the motion that would increase protections for Jewish members, such as those who are members of Zionist synagogues. (Polanski has also described Zionism as a “racist” ideology.) This does not seem to have assuaged members’ concerns.
His apparent failure to state that Israel has a right to exist in an interview with the BBC shortly after giving his conference speech may have made matters worse. When pushed on the matter he said the role of political parties “is to defend the rights of people not defend the rights of nations”. But he did say that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist.
Nor does the failure of the party’s leadership team to make explicit statements on the motion until the first day of conference seem to have sparked much faith among Jewish members who are opposed to the motion. “The MPs and peers have made no statements one way or the other about the motion providing no direction, so members are fighting it out amongst ourselves,” one member said.
Another Jewish member, who would describe themselves as an anti-Zionist but who is opposed to the motion, worried about the impact that passing it will have on public perceptions of the Greens. “Many of us anti-Zionist Jews are upset about it,” they said. “My feeling is that we have to bring people on a journey like Mamdani has in New York, rather than behaving the way many of the proponents of the motion have behaved.”
There have been some accusations of hostile behaviour against those involved in supporting the motion from those who have been explicitly opposed. “We have to be ready for government,” they said, “I am happy with the party’s other policies [on Gaza] … but this is just ideological virtue signalling that will not help us win an election.”
In a statement to the New Statesman, Greens for Palestine said: “Greens For Palestine reject attempts to normalise the racist subjugation and oppression of Palestinians; to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism; to deny or minimise Palestinian human rights; to create hierarchies of racism; and to normalise or attempt to justify apartheid, ethnic cleansing or genocide. We affirm that definitions of anti-Jewish discrimination should not equate Jewish identity with Zionist ideology or political practice. As with any ethnicity or faith group, no single political ideology should be ascribed to an entire people.”
Zionism is Racism is most likely to be voted on this Sunday. As of the time of writing, the conference agenda was being voted on by the party’s Standing Orders Committee – a group of volunteers who set the policy line-up for conference. But Green Party sources expect this motion to reach the conference floor on Sunday morning.
A close supporter of the motion told the New Statesman they believe they have the numbers and that Green Party members will vote to adopt it. Those who oppose the motion are waiting with bated breath. “Sadly, I think it will pass,” one Jewish member who believes the motion is antisemitic told me, “although I live in hope”. Should the motion pass, the party will be in unprecedented territory. No one is quite sure what will come next.
[Further reading: Zack Polanski’s year of magical thinking]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment