Full Breakdown
Green Party Faces Internal Crisis Over “Zionism Is Racism” Motion
By Drooid · · How we work
Motion Passes and Leadership Response
At the Green Party’s Spring Conference, a motion declaring Zionism a form of racism and calling for a single-state solution for Palestinians was adopted by a margin of 1,022 votes to 813. The vote, cast by roughly 0.4 % of the party’s total membership, triggered immediate backlash from party leaders and external watchdogs.
Background & Context
The Green Party’s constitution traditionally requires policy to be decided by members at the annual conference rather than by the leadership. Critics within the party have long warned that a small, highly motivated activist minority can dominate policy outcomes. The Zionism motion intensified these concerns, echoing earlier debates over “entryism” that followed the party’s surge after the 1989 EU elections.
Data & Statistics
- Vote tally: 1,022 for, 813 against (?0.4 % of total membership).
- Party representation: Four of the party’s five MPs opposed the motion; the European Green Party, which backs a two-state solution, also criticised it.
- Referral date: The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) sent a formal letter to the Green Party on 7 October 2026 requesting clarification on the motion’s implementation.
Official Statements & Responses
- He framed electoral success as the primary driver of change and argued that the party’s “democratic structures need to evolve” to accommodate its expanding base.
Criticism & Opposition
- CAA officials described the motion as “racist and unlawful,” contending that it breaches UK anti-discrimination law and urging the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to open a statutory investigation.
- Commentators in The Guardian argued that the motion risks alienating British Jews and could be exploited by political opponents to label the Greens as antisemitic.
Verbatim Quotes
- “I put all my energy into the race in Holborn and St Pancras, despite Labour choosing the polling date so close to our conference, because I know that ultimately electoral success is how we drive change. I know, though, that some feel let down by that decision – and I hear that.” — Zack Polanski
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The Green Party has not publicly responded to the CAA’s October 7 2026 letter, leaving the party’s planned implementation of the motion unclear.
- While the motion’s vote count is consistently reported as 1,022 for and 813 against, the extent to which the decision will affect party policy or trigger disciplinary action remains unspecified.
What’s Next
The EHRC must decide whether to launch a formal investigation under section 20 of the Equality Act 2006. Should the commission proceed, the Green Party could face statutory remedies, including mandatory policy revisions or sanctions. Internally, the leadership has signalled a review of the party’s decision-making structures, though no concrete timetable has been announced.