Now, the Board of Deputies has passed its own motion by 118 votes to one.

It says the Greens had, “by adopting an antisemitic platform, become a racist party”.

The motion also urged parties not to do deals with the Greens unless they reject the policy.

It said forming coalition deals with Greens at the local or national level would be “failing to take antisemitism with the requisite seriousness” unless the party’s local leadership have rejected the policy and committed to overturning it.

Earlier this month, Andy Burnham issued an ultimatum to the Greens, saying Labour “cannot support a partnership with a party that holds the position” as he condemned the motion as “antisemitic”.

But a spokesman for the Greens insisted the party does not discriminate against people who hold Zionist views and rejected the Board of Deputies’ “characterisation of this motion and our party”.

And separately, speaking to GB News, Eugene McCarthy, a Green Party activist and former parliamentary candidate, hit back at the Jewish body, accusing it of being “inherently political” with its own “biases”.

He told GB News: “They repeatedly come out and say things like ‘actually opposing any form of immigration restriction is too far beyond the pale and threatening’.

“This is the position of that organisation. It’s a position which I disagree with.”

He added that while the group was free to have its own opinions, it was wrong to assume they were representative of all Jewish Britons.

Mr McCarthy continued: “Obviously, we can have this free debate, but acting like this is the united voice of British Jews. It’s just not accurate. British Jews are diverse.”

Board of Deputies president Phil Rosenberg said the Greens would be treated “accordingly” as a racist party.

He said: “No political party has the right to tell Jews that a central part of our identity, rooted in thousands of years of history, faith and peoplehood, is racist.

“The Green Party’s policy brands much of our community, including our synagogues and communal organisations, with that slur. It gives prejudice against Jews a political licence.

“The Green Party’s leadership must now take responsibility for reversing this policy and confronting the antisemitism it has legitimised.”

He added that those within the party who have opposed the motion deserved to be “heard and supported”.

Mr Rosenberg continued: “We call on democratic parties and wider civil society to apply the same standards to anti-Jewish racism that they would to any other form of racism.”

A Green Party spokesman said: “The Green Party does not discriminate against or exclude people for holding Zionist views.

“The motion passed at our conference sets out political opposition to the ethnic cleansing and displacement of the Palestinian people.

“We reject the Board of Deputies’ characterisation of this motion and our party, which will not stop us from speaking out against the genocide in Gaza and pushing for stronger sanctions against the Israeli government and its leaders.”

Board of Deputies of British Jews Passes Motion Declaring Zack Polanski’s Greens a ‘Racist’ Party

A major political controversy has erupted in Britain after the Board of Deputies of British Jews passed a motion declaring that Zack Polanski’s Green Party of England and Wales had become a “racist party” following its adoption of a controversial policy on Zionism.

The motion was approved by 118 votes to one at the Board’s plenary meeting on October 25, 2026. It followed an earlier decision by Green Party members to adopt a conference motion declaring that “Zionism is racism”, triggering a fierce debate about antisemitism, Palestinian rights and the boundaries of political criticism.

The decision has intensified pressure on Polanski, the Green Party leader, to clarify his position and explain how his party intends to address concerns raised by Jewish organisations and some of its own members.

The dispute has also created wider questions for British politics, particularly over whether other parties should continue working with the Greens in local councils and other political arrangements.

At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of Zionism, the rights of Jewish people to national self-determination and how opposition to Israeli government policies should be distinguished from hostility towards Jews.

Why the Board of Deputies Took Action

The Board of Deputies is a representative organisation for Jewish communities across Britain. Its decision followed the Green Party’s adoption of a motion at its conference in Brighton on October 4.

The Green Party motion characterised Zionism as a form of racism and supported the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian state across the whole of historic Palestine.

Its supporters argued that the policy was intended to challenge the displacement of Palestinians and what they describe as discriminatory structures associated with Israel.

Critics, however, argued that the motion went beyond criticism of Israeli government policy by rejecting Zionism in terms that could deny Jewish people the right to national self-determination.

The Board of Deputies said the Green Party’s decision had crossed a significant line.

Its president, Phil Rosenberg, argued that Zionism forms an important part of the identity, history and religious traditions of many Jewish people. He said that a political party adopting a policy that characterises Zionism as racist risks stigmatising Jewish communities and legitimising antisemitism.

The Board therefore resolved to treat the Green Party as it had treated other parties it regarded as racist.

The vote was overwhelming, but it represents the Board’s formal position rather than a legal ruling that the Green Party has committed racial discrimination.

That distinction matters as the dispute moves into a wider political debate about the implications of the decision.

Zack Polanski Faces Questions Over His Leadership

Polanski, who is himself Jewish, has faced criticism over his handling of the controversy.

He did not participate in the vote on the original motion at the Green Party conference. Following the decision, he said that the wording was imperfect and that he would not have supported the motion in its unamended form.

He also questioned whether the party or the British government should determine that a single state must be the final settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

At the same time, Polanski has defended the party’s right to campaign for Palestinian freedom and criticise the actions of the Israeli government.

He has insisted that antisemitism must be distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel and has said that Jewish people should not be excluded from the party because of their faith, background or religious community.

Nevertheless, the controversy has placed him in a difficult position.

Some critics believe his response has not adequately addressed the concerns of Jewish organisations and Jewish members of his own party. Others argue that the dispute should not prevent political discussion about Israel, Palestinian rights or the consequences of the war in Gaza.

The challenge for Polanski is to explain how the party can maintain its position on Palestinian rights while ensuring that Jewish members and supporters are treated fairly and feel welcome within its organisation.

His response could have important consequences for the party’s unity and public reputation.

The Green Party Defends Its Position

The Green Party has rejected the Board of Deputies’ characterisation of the organisation as racist.

It maintains that the conference motion was intended to oppose the displacement and oppression of Palestinians, rather than discriminate against Jewish people.

A party spokesperson said the Greens did not exclude or discriminate against people for holding Zionist views. The party also reaffirmed its commitment to speaking out against the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza and supporting stronger measures against Israeli government policies.

The Greens argue that criticism of a political ideology or a state’s actions should not automatically be treated as hostility towards an ethnic or religious community.

This argument reflects a broader international debate about the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

Some Jewish organisations regard the rejection of Zionism, particularly when it entails denying Jewish national self-determination, as antisemitic. Others argue that opposition to Zionism can be based on political principles and does not necessarily amount to prejudice against Jews.

The dispute cannot be resolved simply by assuming that every criticism of Israel is antisemitic or, conversely, that political opposition to Zionism can never involve antisemitism.

The precise language of the policy, its implications and the way it is applied to Jewish people are therefore central to the disagreement.

Pressure Grows for Other Parties to Respond

The Board of Deputies has called on other political parties to reconsider their relationships with the Greens unless the relevant Green leadership rejects the controversial policy and commits to reversing it.

The motion could have practical consequences for local government, where political parties sometimes cooperate to form administrations or pass budgets.

Labour has already put pressure on Green groups with which it works, demanding that they disown the policy or risk losing Labour’s support.

This creates a difficult situation for local councillors who may cooperate on housing, transport, environmental measures and public services despite disagreeing over national party policy.

Supporters of the Board’s position argue that political parties must take antisemitism seriously and should not enter formal arrangements with organisations that retain policies they regard as discriminatory.

Opponents of political isolation argue that excluding an entire party could reduce opportunities for dialogue and make it harder to work together on local issues.

The practical response may vary between councils, depending on the positions taken by individual Green representatives and the assurances they provide.

The Board has said it will continue to engage with Green representatives who publicly reject the disputed policy and commit to campaigning for its reversal.

That approach leaves room for individual members to distance themselves from the party’s official position.

Divisions Within the Greens

The controversy has exposed disagreements within the Green Party itself.

Some members support the conference motion as an expression of solidarity with Palestinians and opposition to Israeli policies. Others have warned that its wording risks alienating Jewish members and blurring the distinction between opposition to a government and hostility towards a community.

These disagreements are particularly sensitive because the Greens have sought to broaden their appeal beyond environmental issues, attracting voters concerned about inequality, public services, civil liberties and international affairs.

A party that hopes to represent a diverse electorate must find ways to address disagreements without allowing debates over international politics to undermine its commitment to equal treatment.

The leadership may face demands to clarify the policy, strengthen protections for Jewish members and explain how the motion will be interpreted in practice.

However, reversing or substantially changing the policy could provoke opposition from members who believe the original decision was necessary to challenge injustice against Palestinians.

Polanski therefore faces competing expectations from different sections of his political movement.

How he handles those tensions could influence the party’s future direction.

What Does the Controversy Mean for British Politics?

The dispute comes at a time when arguments over Israel, Gaza, antisemitism and Palestinian statehood have become increasingly prominent in British political debate.

For Jewish communities, concerns about antisemitism are inseparable from wider questions about safety, religious identity and whether Jewish people can participate in public life without being asked to justify their connection to Israel.

For many pro-Palestinian campaigners, the debate concerns the right to criticise state policies, oppose discrimination and demand political change without having their arguments automatically dismissed.

Both concerns require careful consideration.

Political parties have a responsibility to challenge antisemitism and other forms of racism while protecting legitimate debate about governments, national movements and international conflicts.

The language used in political resolutions matters because it can influence how communities understand their place in public life. At the same time, accusations of racism should be examined carefully, with attention to the actual wording of policies and their consequences.

The Board of Deputies’ motion has made clear that the organisation considers the Greens’ policy unacceptable. The Green Party, however, disputes that conclusion and insists that its position is directed at political structures and the treatment of Palestinians, not Jewish people as a group.

The disagreement is likely to continue through political negotiations, internal party discussions and public debate.

A Defining Test for Zack Polanski

For Polanski, the controversy presents a significant test of leadership.

He must address the concerns raised by Jewish organisations and members while explaining how his party will continue campaigning for Palestinian rights. He must also decide whether the existing policy can remain in place without creating further divisions within the party or damaging its relationships with other political organisations.

The Board of Deputies, meanwhile, has made clear that it expects the Green Party to reverse the disputed position before normal political cooperation can resume without reservations.

The coming weeks will reveal whether the two sides can find common ground or whether the disagreement becomes a longer-lasting feature of British political life.

Ultimately, the controversy is about more than a single conference motion. It raises questions about political accountability, freedom of expression, Jewish identity, Palestinian self-determination and the responsibility of political organisations to challenge prejudice.

The Board’s vote has intensified the pressure on the Greens, but it has not ended the debate.

The next steps will depend on the party’s response, the actions of its elected representatives and whether its leadership can demonstrate that its approach to Israel and Palestine is compatible with a clear commitment to opposing antisemitism and protecting the rights of Jewish people.