In letters shared on social media, the nine MPs also asked Sussex Police to investigate alleged behaviour at the conference.

They cited the “reported rejection of protections for members affiliated with synagogues and Jewish organisations, and the reported exclusionary chanting” as grounds for inquiries.

In a separate letter, a larger group of 16 lawmakers asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to “consider opening a formal investigation under section 20 of the Equality Act 2006”.

Former migration minister Mike Tapp and chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Mark Sewards, were among the signatories of both letters.

On Sunday, the Green Party passed the motion, which defined “Zionism is racism”, 1,022 to 813 and adopted it without substantive amendment.

It defines Zionism as an “ethnonationalist political project” and states that opposition to Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination and statehood, should not be equated with antisemitism.

“This is an official party policy with potential implications for its members,” the MPs wrote in their letter to Sussex Police.

The nine lawmakers also asked inquiries to be made into reports “delegates rejected an amendment intended to protect members against pressure or disciplinary action because of their affiliations with synagogues and Jewish organisations identifying as Zionist”.

“The rejected safeguard is particularly relevant because it specifically concerned synagogues and Jewish communal organisations,” they added. “It therefore raises questions about the treatment of Jewish people and institutions in Britain.”

They also highlighted allegations of Green Party supporters chanting “say it loud, say it clear, Zionists are not welcome here”.

“Our concern is whether the term ‘Zionist’ was used, in this setting, to direct or encourage hostility towards Jewish people,” the MPs wrote.

The MPs asked officers to consider Sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which cover the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour where there is an intention to stir up racial hatred, or where racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.

They also asked police to consider separate provisions covering the stirring up of religious hatred under Part 3A of the Act, as well as any other relevant public-order or harassment offences.

“We request a prompt review by an officer experienced in assessing hate crime,” the letter continued.

“We believe the evidence provides a concrete basis for this complaint and warrants a substantive police response. If you decide against further action, we would welcome an explanation of that decision.

“Jewish people are entitled to the protection of the law, including when the conduct complained of occurs in a political setting.

“We ask for a thorough assessment of these events and appropriate action where the evidence establishes an offence,” the letter read.

A spokesperson for Sussex Police told GB News: “We can confirm we have received a letter and are reviewing its contents to determine the appropriate next steps.”

The Green Party’s motion sparked outrage across the political spectrum, with a No10 spokesman branding the move a “shameful vote against a two-state solution”.

Jewish Greens leader Vivien Lichtenstein slammed the motion and admitted it was now “possible” she could leave the party.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski did not take part in Sunday’s vote but released a statement after the motion passed.

“Antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state are, and must always be, completely distinct – blurring the line between the two is not only wrong but antisemitic, and makes Jewish people less safe,” he said.

“It’s our role as a movement for justice to protect both the rights of Palestinians and our Jewish communities here in the UK.

“As leader, I will not accept any exclusion or refusal to engage with anyone, because of the religious or communal body they are part of.

“I am proud of our party’s principled position on fighting for freedom and justice for Palestinians.”

GB News has approached the Green Party for comment.

Zack Polanski’s Green Party Reported to Police Over ‘Zionism Is Racism’ Motion

Zack Polanski’s Green Party is facing growing political and legal scrutiny after Labour MPs reported the party to police over a controversial motion declaring that “Zionism is racism”. The complaint has intensified an already bitter dispute over antisemitism, Palestinian rights and the boundaries of political expression, leaving the party’s leadership under pressure to explain its position.

The controversy erupted after Green Party members voted at their annual conference in Brighton on 4 October 2026 to adopt the motion, which establishes an anti-Zionist position within the party’s policy framework. The proposal passed with 1,022 votes in favour and 813 against, exposing deep divisions among members and elected representatives.

More than a dozen Labour MPs subsequently asked Sussex Police to examine whether chants heard during the conference could have crossed the line into unlawful racial or religious hatred. The complaint also raised concerns about whether the language used against Zionists might have been directed at Jewish people more broadly.

The police referral does not establish that a criminal offence occurred. It asks authorities to examine the circumstances and determine whether the available evidence warrants further action.

For Polanski, the dispute has become a major test of his leadership, particularly after his unsuccessful attempt to win a parliamentary seat in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. He must now respond to criticism from political opponents, Jewish organisations and members of his own party while defending the Greens’ stated commitment to equality and human rights.

What Sparked the Police Complaint?

The immediate cause of the controversy was the Green Party’s decision to adopt a motion equating Zionism with racism.

The motion supports Palestinian liberation, the right of return for Palestinians, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and a comprehensive arms embargo against Israel. It also advocates establishing a single democratic Palestinian state across the territory of historic Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital.

Supporters argue that the policy is intended to oppose discrimination, occupation and the denial of Palestinian rights. They contend that political support for Zionism should be open to criticism, particularly when discussing the treatment of Palestinians and the policies of successive Israeli governments.

Critics, however, say the motion goes beyond criticism of the Israeli government or its military actions. They argue that defining Zionism as inherently racist risks treating Jewish national identity and the aspirations of many Jewish people as illegitimate.

The distinction is important because Zionism encompasses a range of beliefs about Jewish self-determination and the existence of a Jewish homeland. People who identify as Zionists do not necessarily agree on Israel’s borders, its government, the treatment of Palestinians or the country’s constitutional arrangements.

Similarly, criticism of Israel and opposition to Zionism are not automatically synonymous with antisemitism. The central question in the present dispute is whether the motion, its wording and the circumstances surrounding its adoption could lead to discrimination against Jewish people or the exclusion of Jewish members who hold different political beliefs.

That is one of the issues raised by the police complaint and the separate calls for scrutiny by the equality watchdog.

Labour MPs Demand an Investigation

Labour MPs, including former Home Office minister Mike Tapp and Labour Friends of Israel chair Mark Sewards, were among those who raised concerns about events at the conference.

Their complaint highlighted chants including “say it loud, say it clear, Zionists are not welcome here”. They asked police to consider whether the language, in its particular context, could have encouraged hostility towards Jewish people.

The MPs argued that investigators should establish whether the term “Zionist” was being used to describe a political ideology or as a proxy for Jewish people as a group.

This distinction could be significant when assessing whether the law has been breached. Political slogans and controversial opinions are not automatically criminal, even when they cause offence. The legal assessment depends on the words used, the context, the intention where relevant and the applicable statutory tests.

A referral to police is therefore not the same as a formal finding of unlawful conduct. It does not establish that the Green Party, its leadership or individual conference attendees have committed an offence.

The matter also raises broader questions about how political parties manage contentious debates. Parties must allow members to argue over public policy, including the actions of foreign governments, while ensuring that internal discussions do not become a vehicle for harassment or discrimination.

The police will need to assess the specific allegations rather than simply decide whether the motion itself is politically acceptable.

Why the Motion Has Divided the Green Party

The controversy has exposed significant disagreements within the Greens, a party that presents itself as committed to equality, civil liberties and human rights.

Four of the party’s five MPs publicly rejected the motion or expressed serious concerns about its wording. Among them was Ellie Chowns, who warned that the decision risked fuelling division and undermining the party’s ability to campaign effectively for justice and peace.

Former Green Party leader Caroline Lucas also criticised the motion, arguing that it imposed a single definition on a political movement whose supporters hold differing views.

Their objections reveal a tension between the party’s internal democratic procedures and the responsibility of its leadership to maintain a coherent political position.

Green Party members have the right to propose and vote on policies through the party’s established processes. Supporters of the motion argue that the conference was entitled to make a decision after a contested debate.

However, opponents say the leadership should have done more to address the consequences before the vote, particularly the concerns raised by Jewish members and organisations representing British Jews.

The dispute is not simply about whether the party should criticise Israel. It concerns how the Greens define anti-racism, how they distinguish political criticism from hostility towards a community, and whether members who disagree with the new position can continue to participate without feeling marginalised.

These questions could have lasting implications for the party’s internal culture and its relationship with voters who support Palestinian rights but are uncomfortable with the wording of the motion.

Polanski’s Leadership Comes Under Pressure

Polanski did not participate in the vote because he had left the Brighton conference to campaign in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election.

The decision attracted criticism because he was absent when one of the most contentious policies in the party’s recent history was adopted. His opponents argued that the leader should have been present to help guide the debate and clarify the consequences of the proposal.

Polanski has said that his priority was the by-election campaign, which he regarded as an important opportunity for the Greens to win a parliamentary seat.

After the result, however, the party faced two major setbacks at once: the failure to win the constituency and the growing backlash over the Zionism motion.

Labour candidate Sagal Abdi-Wali won the by-election with 12,292 votes, approximately 45 per cent of the total. Polanski finished second with 8,928 votes, just under 33 per cent.

The result denied Polanski a seat in the House of Commons and raised questions about how he would lead the party from outside Parliament. The controversy surrounding the motion has added another challenge.

Polanski has defended his continued leadership and said that he wants the Greens to remain committed to universal human rights. He has also acknowledged that some members felt let down by his absence during the vote.

His immediate task is to explain how the party will implement its new policy while protecting Jewish members and maintaining its opposition to racism in all forms.

Is Calling Zionism Racist Antisemitic?

This question sits at the centre of the political dispute, but it cannot be answered adequately by treating every use of the term “Zionism” as having the same meaning.

Zionism developed as a movement supporting Jewish self-determination and the establishment of a Jewish national home. Its historical development is closely connected to centuries of antisemitism, persecution and the search for security among Jewish communities.

For many Jewish people, support for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is inseparable from their understanding of Jewish history and collective security. For others, Jewish identity and political beliefs about Israel are distinct, and they may reject Zionism while maintaining strong connections to Jewish religious and cultural life.

There are also different strands of Zionism, including competing views about borders, Palestinian statehood, settlements, religious identity and the relationship between Jewish self-determination and democratic equality.

Consequently, criticism of a particular Zionist ideology or of Israeli state policy is not automatically antisemitic. Equally, political language can become antisemitic if it relies on anti-Jewish stereotypes, treats Jewish people collectively as responsible for Israel’s actions or seeks to exclude them from public life because of their identity.

The concern raised by opponents of the Green motion is that defining Zionism as racism without sufficient qualification could stigmatise Jewish people who identify with the movement.

Supporters argue that the policy is directed at a political ideology and is intended to challenge the treatment of Palestinians, rather than target Jewish people as a community.

The police complaint and the wider political debate concern whether the actual wording and surrounding conduct support the critics’ allegations. That question requires careful examination rather than an assumption that all anti-Zionist speech is antisemitic or that political intent automatically rules out discriminatory consequences.

Jewish Organisations Raise Serious Concerns

The motion has attracted criticism from prominent Jewish organisations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council.

These organisations warned before the conference that the proposed policy could have consequences for Jewish members and for the wider community. Following the vote, their concerns intensified, with critics arguing that the wording risked conflating Jewish identity with racism.

The controversy has also prompted criticism from within the Green Party’s own Jewish membership. Some Jewish Greens have questioned whether the party’s new position leaves sufficient room for members who support Israel’s existence while also opposing the occupation and advocating Palestinian rights.

Such concerns cannot be resolved solely through declarations that the party opposes antisemitism. They require clear procedures, consistent standards and reassurance that Jewish members will not be subjected to hostility or exclusion because of their identity or communal affiliations.

At the same time, organisations and individuals advocating Palestinian rights argue that legitimate criticism of Israeli policy must not be silenced by automatically labelling it antisemitic.

The challenge for the Greens is to demonstrate that they can protect both principles: freedom to criticise state policies and a firm commitment to ensuring that Jewish people are treated equally.

Equality Watchdog Also Faces Calls to Investigate

The police complaint is not the only avenue through which the party is facing scrutiny.

The Green Party has also been referred to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Britain’s equality watchdog, amid allegations that the motion could lead to discrimination against Jewish members.

The commission’s role differs from that of the police. Police consider whether there is evidence of possible criminal conduct, while the equality watchdog examines compliance with equality law and may investigate whether an organisation has breached its legal responsibilities.

A referral does not mean that the commission has opened a formal investigation or concluded that discrimination occurred. Any action would depend on its assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal framework.

The distinction matters because the controversy involves several separate questions: whether particular chants breached public-order law, whether the party’s policy could result in unlawful discrimination, and whether the political position itself is defensible.

These questions should not be treated as interchangeable. A political motion can be deeply controversial without necessarily constituting a criminal offence, while the conduct of individuals at a conference may need to be assessed independently of the policy that was adopted.

What Happens Next?

The Green Party now faces pressure to clarify how the motion will operate in practice.

One key issue is whether the new policy will affect party members who identify as Zionists or belong to Jewish organisations that support Israel’s existence. The conference rejected a proposed safeguard that would have made clear that the motion should not be used to pressure or discipline members because of their affiliations with synagogues or other Jewish groups that describe themselves as Zionist.

The party has indicated that the motion does not automatically require politicians to support every aspect of the policy. Nevertheless, questions remain about how the wording will influence future decisions, internal disputes and the treatment of members.

Polanski has called for changes to the party’s internal decision-making arrangements, arguing that its democratic mechanisms need to evolve and give the leadership greater responsibility for strategic direction. That proposal could itself generate debate among members who regard conference decisions as a central feature of the Greens’ political identity.

The party must also decide how to respond to any inquiries from police or the equality watchdog. A constructive response would involve cooperating with lawful requests, providing relevant information and explaining the safeguards it has in place against discrimination and harassment.

A Major Test of Political Leadership

The controversy over the “Zionism is racism” motion has developed into a broader test of the Green Party’s identity and its ability to manage disagreements over Israel and Palestine.

Supporters of the motion see it as a statement against discrimination and in favour of Palestinian self-determination. Critics believe its wording risks alienating Jewish members and blurring the distinction between opposition to Israeli government policy and hostility towards Jewish identity.

The police referral does not settle that argument, nor does it establish that the party has committed a criminal offence. It does, however, demonstrate that the consequences of the conference debate extend beyond internal party politics.

For Polanski, the challenge is to explain the policy, respond to legitimate concerns and demonstrate how the Greens will uphold their stated commitment to equality for all.

For the party, the consequences could be significant. Its response will influence whether members and voters believe it can combine a forceful position on Palestinian rights with consistent protection against antisemitism and other forms of discrimination.

Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the evidence considered by the relevant authorities, the clarity of the party’s rules and the actions taken by its leadership. The debate over Zionism and racism is likely to continue, but it will be important to distinguish political disagreement from unlawful conduct and to ensure that both Palestinian rights and the safety and equality of Jewish people remain central to the discussion.