Zack Polanski has said he does not think his party’s “Zionism is racism” policy is “controversial” but said he wants to amend it “at the first available opportunity”.
The Green Party leader said he believes Zionism – the movement to develop and protect a Jewish state in Israel – is “racism” in how it is applied. He confirmed he will not overturn the motion but plans to amend it, though he added that he is unable to do so for two years because of party rules.
Article continues below
His party has been facing intense pressure and criticism after it passed a motion defining Zionism as racist by 1,022 votes to 813 at their conference. The policy – put forward by the Greens for Palestine group – has been criticised by leading Greens, and four of the party’s five MPs said they did not support it ahead of the vote.
Asked about the motion – which was passed at the Greens’ annual conference – Mr Polanski, who is Jewish, told BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg show: “The first thing I’d say is I don’t think this is actually controversial. I think what’s controversial is that 75,000 Palestinians have been murdered in the last few years.”
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. More info
The London assembly member – who has previously said he would not have voted for the motion – continued: “I think Zionism is racism in the practical application of it. Now the conference had a debate about the motion, about the word. I said I think debates about words are unhelpful, and I still think that.”
Asked whether he would overturn the policy motion, he added: “I’m not going to try and overturn it. At the first available opportunity, I do want to amend it. I want to move away from one state towards saying that Israelis and Palestinians should decide that future for themselves.”
Article continues below
Asked when that will be, he said 2028, because “when you vote on something in our party conference, that’s then policy for two years”. When asked if he thinks Israel has a right to exist, Mr Polanski said: “I don’t think any state has a right to exist under international law, but the question is, what Israel, even Israel, doesn’t know its own borders. It’s constantly invading other people’s land.
“Also, there’s no right to exist for any country. Ultimately, people have a right to exist, and what I’m sat here saying – and I don’t think is in any way controversial – is I want Israelis and Palestinians to live together, side by side, to be able to self-determine themselves, to all be able to vote, to all be able to have freedom, the right to live in freedom and security.”
Mr Polanski has faced a troubling few weeks, which has also included a failed bid to become an MP in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. A survey by Ipsos this month found 52% of the public said they had an unfavourable view of the Green leader, up six points since September and the first time more than half of the population had expressed a negative opinion of Mr Polanski.
Just 16% said they had a positive view of the leader and his overall approval rating has fallen to minus 36, the lowest of any national party leader. The Ipsos poll surveyed 2,257 British adults online between October 9 and 13.
Zack Polanski has sparked renewed debate after saying he would not overturn the policy associated with the phrase “Zionism is racism”, but would amend it at the first opportunity. His comments have brought questions about political language, antisemitism, Palestinian rights and the future direction of the Green Party back into the spotlight.
The issue is sensitive because Zionism, antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli government are related in public debate but do not mean the same thing. Zionism generally refers to support for Jewish self-determination in their historic homeland, while people hold different views about how that principle should be expressed politically. Antisemitism means prejudice, hostility or discrimination against Jewish people. Criticism of Israeli government policies is not automatically antisemitic, although language that targets Jewish people collectively or denies them rights afforded to others can raise serious concerns.
Polanski’s reported position appears to leave the underlying policy in place for now while signalling that he would seek to change its wording or formulation. That distinction is likely to attract attention from party members, Jewish communities, Palestinian-rights campaigners and political opponents, all of whom may interpret the statement differently.
For the Green Party, the question is not simply whether a particular phrase should remain in a policy document. It is also about how the party expresses its position on Israel and Palestine while making clear its opposition to antisemitism and discrimination.
Political parties frequently revise policies as leadership changes, membership debates evolve and international events reshape public discussion. However, changes involving identity, religion and national self-determination can be especially difficult because the language carries historical meaning and emotional significance for different communities.
Polanski has sought to establish his political identity around issues including inequality, climate change, public services and human rights. His comments on Zionism place him within a wider debate about how progressive political movements should approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Supporters of strong Palestinian-rights advocacy argue that criticism of Zionism can form part of a broader discussion about nationalism, state policy, occupation and the rights of Palestinians. They may contend that political movements must be able to challenge Israeli government actions without being accused automatically of antisemitism.
Others warn that describing Zionism as inherently racist can be interpreted as dismissing the national identity or self-determination of Jewish people. For many Jews, Zionism has different meanings, including support for Israel’s existence as a Jewish homeland, while views on Israeli governments, settlements, borders and Palestinian statehood vary considerably.
These distinctions make the wording of party policy important. A statement intended to criticise a political ideology may be understood by others as a judgement about an entire community. Political leaders therefore face pressure to explain precisely what they mean and what their policies would do in practice.
The phrase “Zionism is racism” has a long history in international politics. In 1975, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379, which determined that Zionism was a form of racism and racial discrimination. The resolution was revoked in 1991 through Resolution 46/86. The history remains part of wider disputes over how Zionism should be understood and how international institutions have approached the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The political context has changed significantly since those resolutions. Israel remains a state with a Jewish national identity, while Palestinians continue to seek self-determination and an end to occupation. The conflict has involved wars, displacement, settlement disputes, security concerns and repeated failures to achieve a lasting political settlement.
For politicians in Britain, these issues can create difficult choices. They must respond to developments in the Middle East, address concerns raised by constituents and maintain clear standards against racism and religious hatred. They also face pressure from supporters who believe their party should take a stronger position on Palestinian rights.
Polanski’s statement may be an attempt to navigate these competing demands. By saying that he would not overturn the policy but would amend it at the first opportunity, he appears to distinguish between retaining the policy’s broad direction and changing the language used to express it. The precise implications, however, depend on the existing policy text and the amendments he intends to propose.
Without a clear explanation of the proposed changes, it would be premature to conclude that the position represents a major shift or merely a cosmetic adjustment. The wording of a policy can matter, but so can the definitions it uses, the actions it calls for and the way it is applied.
For Jewish members and voters, one important question will be whether the party can demonstrate that its opposition to antisemitism is clear and consistent. For Palestinian-rights supporters, another question will be whether the party continues to challenge policies they regard as discriminatory and supports Palestinian freedom and equality.
These concerns do not have to be treated as mutually exclusive. A political movement can oppose antisemitism while advocating Palestinian rights, criticising Israeli government decisions and supporting a political settlement that protects the security and rights of both peoples. The challenge is to communicate those commitments clearly and apply them consistently.
The debate also highlights the difficulty of defining antisemitism in political discussions. Different organisations and institutions use different frameworks, and arguments often arise over where legitimate criticism of Israel ends and antisemitic expression begins. Context matters, including whether statements target specific government actions, Jewish people as a group or the rights of Jewish communities to live safely and participate equally in public life.
Likewise, support for Palestinian rights covers a wide range of positions. Some campaigners advocate a two-state solution, while others support a single state with equal rights or different constitutional arrangements. There are also disagreements over sanctions, arms sales, diplomatic recognition and the future of Israeli settlements.
A political party must decide which of these positions it supports and explain how its policies would advance its stated objectives. General slogans can attract attention, but they rarely resolve the practical questions surrounding borders, security, governance and the rights of people living on both sides of the conflict.
Polanski’s leadership will therefore be judged not only on the phrase itself but also on how he handles the wider debate. Members may want a clear timetable for any amendment, an explanation of the intended wording and reassurance that the party will maintain a firm position against discrimination.
Political opponents may use the controversy to question the Green Party’s judgement or consistency. Such criticism is likely to become part of the broader competition for voters who are concerned about foreign policy, civil liberties and the treatment of minority communities. However, the political consequences will depend on the details of the policy and the response from party members and the public.
The discussion also comes against a backdrop of heightened international concern about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Violence, civilian suffering and disputes over humanitarian assistance have intensified calls for political action in Britain and elsewhere. Demonstrations and public statements have frequently exposed sharp disagreements over the appropriate response.
In this environment, politicians need to be precise. Condemning discrimination should not depend on a person’s political affiliation or nationality. Jewish people should not be held collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, just as Palestinians should not be treated as collectively responsible for the actions of particular organisations.
Equally, discussion of state policy and national movements must remain possible. Democracies depend on the ability to challenge governments, debate political ideologies and advocate changes to international arrangements. The task is to do so without promoting hostility towards people because of their religion, ethnicity or identity.
Ultimately, Polanski’s promise to amend the policy “at first opportunity” leaves important questions unanswered until the proposed changes are made clear. The key issue will be whether the revised wording provides a more precise expression of the party’s position while addressing concerns about antisemitism and preserving its commitment to Palestinian rights.
The controversy demonstrates how a few words in a political document can become the focus of a much wider argument about identity, equality and international justice. For the Green Party, the next step will be to explain exactly what it intends to change and why.
Until those details are available, the statement should be understood as an indication of a possible future amendment rather than evidence that the policy has already changed. The debate is likely to continue as party members, campaigners and communities seek clarity about what the position means in practice.