Zack Polanski had the chance to show real leadership. He blew it | Rafael Behr

What did the Green Party of England and Wales vote to define Zionism as, and why was Zack Polanski's absence from the debate significant?

The Green Party of England and Wales voted to make anti-Zionism part of its constitutional identity. Its motion describes Zionism as fundamentally incompatible with anti-racist principles, equality and justice. It also calls Zionism a European settler-colonial system of domination and oppression. This matters because the policy rejects Israel's legitimacy, not merely the actions of its current government.

Zack Polanski, the party's Jewish leader, was not present for the debate. He left to campaign before a byelection in Holborn and St Pancras, the seat vacated by Keir Starmer. The article says he could have stayed, spoken, and voted. Instead, his absence left his position unclear during a deeply contentious decision.

That uncertainty is especially important because Polanski's stated view is described as convoluted. He recognises that Zionism has different meanings and supported a safeguarding amendment for Jewish Greens. The European Green group has sought clarity from the leadership, but the article says Polanski has not provided it.

What is Zionism, and why can it include both left-wing and right-wing political ideas?

Zionism is a broad belief that Jews have an ancestral homeland on the eastern Mediterranean's border. The article describes it as a belief shaped by historical, biblical, and intellectual traditions. It began as liturgical yearning, then became a modern political ambition: creating safety from persecution. The term therefore names a national idea, not one fixed political programme.

That central belief can be linked to opposing political positions. Zionism can be left-wing or right-wing, moderate or extreme. Someone might connect it with equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity, while another might combine it with ultra-nationalism. The article also distinguishes support for Israel's existence from support for Benjamin Netanyahu's government, racist ministers, or the war in Gaza.

This range explains the dispute over the Green motion. The party treats Zionism as one oppressive political system. The article argues that this erases its varied meanings and alienates Jews who oppose Israel's government but still believe Israel should exist as a place of sanctuary.

How much support did the anti-Zionism motion have among Green Party members, according to the European Green group?

The European Green group said fewer than 1% of Green Party members voted for the anti-Zionism motion. The article gives no larger vote total, so the precise number of supporters is not stated. Still, the figure indicates that the motion had very limited support across the party's membership, even though it was adopted as a statement of constitutional principle.

The motion does not therefore represent a demonstrated majority of all Green members. It was a decision made through the party's membership process, while Green MPs and other senior figures opposed it. The European Green group also criticised the contradiction between the motion's status and its narrow level of support.

The gap creates a leadership problem. The party is now described as anti-Zionist to its constitutional core, but its affiliated European group wants clarity. The article suggests that disagreement remains between the formal policy, elected representatives, senior figures, and the party leadership.

What position does the motion take on Israel's legitimacy and the two-state solution?

The motion takes the position that Israel is illegitimate in its conception. It does not limit that judgment to the occupied Palestinian territories. Instead, it rejects the legitimacy of the whole country. The article presents this as a fundamental challenge to Zionism and to the idea of Israel as a Jewish place of sanctuary.

Because of that position, the Greens reject a two-state solution. The motion treats Israel's existence, rather than only the conduct of its government or control over disputed territory, as the central problem. Its stated demand is the erasure of Israel from the map as part of a global struggle against racism.

This makes the party's policy more extreme than the position held by the Palestinian Authority, according to the article. It also explains the censure from the European Green group. The policy places the Greens at odds with many British Jews who condemn Netanyahu's government and the Gaza war but still support Israel's right to exist.

Why did the idea of Zionism emerge, and how did it lead to the creation of Israel in 1948?

The article traces Zionism through historical, biblical, and intellectual strands. The belief in a Jewish ancestral homeland existed for centuries as liturgical yearning. It was not initially a single modern political programme. Over time, the idea became connected to the need for Jews to find safety from persecution and to secure a place of refuge.

Mass slaughter gave that political ambition urgency. The article does not name particular events, but it says persecution and mass killing pushed the idea toward practical realisation. Zionism therefore changed from a religious hope into a movement seeking political security. That transformation connected identity, history, territory, and protection from danger.

The process culminated in 1948 with the foundation of the state now called Israel. Since then, Zionism has been interpreted through wars and changing Israeli politics. The article stresses that these later developments produced different forms of Zionism, rather than one definition accepted by everyone.

What is a two-state solution, and how does it differ from seeking a single state across Israel and the Palestinian territories?

In standard usage, a two-state solution means creating separate Israeli and Palestinian states, rather than placing both peoples under one state. It addresses the conflict through political separation and mutual national self-determination. The source does not give a detailed definition, but it contrasts this solution with rejecting Israel's existence altogether.

The Green motion takes the latter position. It regards Israel—not only the occupied Palestinian territories—as illegitimate in its conception. Its argument is therefore not simply that Israel should withdraw from territories or change its government. It treats the country's creation and continued existence as the central injustice.

The practical implication is a single-state alternative across the land, although the article does not describe that state's institutions or constitutional arrangements. It says the motion demands Israel's erasure from the map. The article also notes that this position is more extreme than the Palestinian Authority's and has drawn censure from the European Green group.

How can a membership-led political party adopt a policy that conflicts with its leader, elected representatives, and affiliated organisations?

A membership-led party can adopt a policy through its internal voting process without requiring agreement from every leader or elected representative. The Green Party's motion was passed by members, so it became part of the party's constitutional position. That formal decision can coexist with dissent from the leader, MPs, senior figures, and affiliated organisations.

The article gives a clear example. Fewer than 1% of members voted for the anti-Zionism motion, while Green MPs and other senior figures opposed it. The European Green group, to which the party is affiliated, also criticised the contradiction and sought clarity. These disagreements do not automatically cancel the motion's status inside the party.

The result is a divided organisation. Its formal policy is anti-Zionist, but prominent representatives do not share it, and its leader avoided the debate. The article leaves the leadership's response unresolved. That tension may force the party to explain whether constitutional policy or public representatives define its political identity.

Key Facts:

📌 The Greens declared Zionism incompatible with anti-racist principles, equality and justice.

📌 Zack Polanski left before the debate to campaign in a byelection.

📌 The European Green group sought clarity from Green Party leadership.

📌 Zionism developed from religious yearning into a modern political ambition.

📌 The article says Zionism can be left or right, moderate or extreme.

📌 Many Jews oppose Israel's government while supporting the country's existence.

📌 Fewer than 1% of members voted for the anti-Zionism motion.