UK Green Party's Zionism-Racism Vote Sparks Diplomatic Row and Internal Division

The United Kingdom's Green Party has formally adopted a resolution classifying Zionism as a form of racism, a move that has triggered sharp condemnation from Israel and exposed deep rifts within the party's own ranks. The binding vote took place during the party's conference over the weekend, where members also endorsed a broader set of policies sharply critical of Israel. The decision has thrust the Greens into an international spotlight and raised questions about how far mainstream political parties can go in challenging established positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The resolution passed with 1,022 delegates voting in favour and 813 against, according to the source article. Alongside the Zionism definition, the party reaffirmed what it described as its commitment to Palestinian liberation and called for the establishment of a single democratic state across historic Palestine. The Greens also restated support for the right of return for Palestinian refugees and for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel.

In a statement explaining its position, the party argued that the practical reality of Zionism has involved the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement and dispossession of Palestinians. That framing, however, has proven deeply contentious not only internationally but also within the Green Party itself. Four of the party's five members of parliament opposed parts of the resolution, signalling that the leadership's stance does not command unanimous support among elected representatives.

Deputy leader Rachel Millward publicly distanced herself from the policy in a post on X. She stressed that while the party remains committed to stopping what she described as genocide, the term Zionism carries different meanings for different people. In her view, the new policy does not help advance the work the party wants to accomplish. Her comments underscore the difficulty of translating a broad political principle into a workable party platform.

Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, was away campaigning during the vote. Speaking to journalists afterwards, he said that if Zionism equates to the displacement of Palestinians, then that is clearly racist. Yet he also expressed reservations about the call for a single Palestinian state, arguing that external entities should not determine what a future state should look like. His nuanced response illustrates the tightrope party leaders must walk between appealing to their activist base and maintaining broader electoral credibility.

Israel's reaction was swift and severe. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the Greens of legitimising terrorism and claimed the party had adopted not only the green of Hamas but also its ideology, specifically the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle. President Isaac Herzog said the move would deliberately endanger Jews and Israelis everywhere. Opposition leader Yair Lapid labelled the party racist.

The Green Party has rejected any suggestion that criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-Semitism. In a statement on Sunday, Polanski and other senior party figures insisted there is no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people. The party also reiterated its opposition to any form of discrimination or harassment.

The controversy has had immediate consequences for Polanski. On Monday, Israel announced it had banned the Green Party leader from entering the country. The timing was striking: the ban came just one day before Polanski was due to contest a by-election in the London constituency previously represented by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The move adds a diplomatic dimension to what was already a fiercely contested local race.

This is not the first time Zionism has been equated with racism on an international stage. In 1975, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution determining that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. The vote was sponsored by the Soviet bloc and the Arab League, and it passed with support from 72 countries, largely in the Middle East and Africa. Israel and 34 other nations, chiefly from the West, opposed it, while 32 countries abstained.

That 1975 resolution came just a year after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat delivered his famous olive branch speech at the General Assembly. At around the same time, African countries opposing South Africa's apartheid regime were increasingly using the language of racism to describe systems of oppression. The historical parallel is significant because it shows how the Zionism-racism debate has long been entangled with broader global struggles over colonialism, self-determination and racial equality.

Zionism itself emerged as a political ideology in the late 19th century, calling for the creation of a Jewish homeland amid rising anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews in Europe. Theodore Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist widely regarded as the father of political Zionism, initially proposed an independent and colonial Jewish state in either Palestine or Argentina. That historical context is often invoked by both supporters and critics of the ideology.

For the Green Party, the vote represents both a moral statement and a political gamble. The party has positioned itself as a champion of Palestinian rights, but the internal dissent and international backlash suggest the decision may carry costs. With four of five MPs opposed, the resolution could complicate the party's ability to present a unified front on foreign policy. It also raises questions about whether the Greens can retain moderate voters while satisfying an activist base that pushed for the stronger language.

The broader implications extend beyond Britain. The vote adds to a growing trend in Western left-wing parties of adopting more explicitly pro-Palestinian positions, often framed in the language of anti-racism and human rights. Israel and its allies view such moves as delegitimising the Jewish state. Supporters of the Green Party's stance argue that distinguishing between criticism of Israeli government policy and anti-Semitism is essential to honest debate.

As the by-election approaches and the diplomatic fallout continues, the Green Party's resolution is likely to remain a flashpoint. It has already drawn comparisons to the 1975 UN vote, revived debates about the meaning of Zionism and exposed the fault lines within a party that has long prided itself on progressive unity. How the Greens manage the aftermath may shape both their domestic fortunes and their standing on the international stage.