Greens must avoid ‘capture by extremists and racists’, says party MP

The Green Party conference changed two connected parts of its official position. It voted to treat Zionism, described in the article as the movement for a Jewish state, as another form of racism. It also backed a single Palestinian state rather than a two-state solution. The decision matters because it addresses both the meaning of Zionism and the political structure proposed for the conflict.

The motion passed at the party’s annual conference with just over 1,000 votes. Two amendments supported by leader Zack Polanski would have said Palestinians should decide any future state structure, rather than having a one-state system imposed. Those amendments failed. Polanski later said he would have voted against the motion.

The vote has created a political crisis. Ellie Chowns said the policy was significant and damaging, and argued that the party’s policymaking system was not working. She said most Green members probably did not support it and wanted the party to focus on Israeli government actions instead.

Zionism is the movement supporting a Jewish state. In the article’s debate, the term is contested because people attach different political and historical meanings to it. The Green Party motion treated Zionism as a form of racism. Other party members, including Ellie Chowns, rejected making that label the party’s policy and said the issue involved disputed definitions.

The disagreement is not merely about vocabulary. Calling Zionism racism changes how the party describes a movement connected with Israel and Jewish national identity. Chowns said members should instead unite around criticising what she called the horrific actions of the Israeli government. The article also notes that some British Jews who vote Green have a connection to Israel, making the wording especially sensitive.

The continuing argument shows why the term has become politically important inside the party. Chowns said the policy did not represent most Green members or people in the country. She called for internal processes that prevent extremists or racists from capturing party policy.

The motion passed with just over 1,000 votes, which the article says represented approximately 0.4% of the Green Party’s total membership. That is striking because the decision concerned a major policy on Zionism and the future of a Palestinian state. The figure does not mean only 0.4% supported the motion; it means the votes recorded were equivalent to that share of all members.

This distinction matters. A conference vote can involve only members who attend, participate, or use the party’s approved decision-making process. Members who were absent, did not vote, or were not involved were not directly represented in that tally. The article presents the small figure as evidence that the process allowed a limited group to make a highly consequential decision.

Ellie Chowns said the ability to pass such a significant and damaging policy showed that the party’s structures were not working. The dispute may therefore lead to pressure for reforms, especially as membership has expanded rapidly and leaders question whether decentralised policymaking remains suitable.

Decentralised policymaking gives party members more direct influence over policy instead of leaving decisions mainly to leaders or a central executive. That can improve participation. It can also create vulnerability when only a small number of members take part in a conference vote. A motivated group may then secure a policy change that does not reflect the wider membership.

The article gives a clear example. Just over 1,000 votes passed the “Zionism is racism” motion, equal to about 0.4% of total membership. The motion also backed one Palestinian state. Ellie Chowns said such a significant policy should not be able to pass through structures that fail to represent the majority. The mechanism is participation: the people present and voting have more immediate power than silent or absent members.

The issue is urgent because Green membership has expanded rapidly. Chowns wants safeguards against capture by extremists and racists. The party now faces a choice between preserving direct member control and changing procedures to produce broader, more representative decisions.

The vote has produced a leadership crisis and exposed deep internal divisions. Zack Polanski missed the conference debate and vote while campaigning in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection. Critics accused him of failing to lead because he had not clearly said whether he supported the motion. He later said he would have voted against it and intended to remain leader.

The dispute has also affected internal unity. Ellie Chowns criticised Polanski’s lack of leadership but said he could still unite the party. Vivien Lichtenstein, chair of the Jewish Greens, called his absence a big mistake and said he should resign. Other Jewish Greens members said she did not represent the group’s majority view, and a no-confidence vote against her was tabled.

Publicly, the party faces reputational damage over a motion described by Chowns as significant and damaging. The fallout comes alongside a byelection defeat to Labour. Future pressure may focus on leadership, party rules, and safeguards against extremist or racist capture.

A one-state solution means Israelis and Palestinians would live within one political state. A two-state solution means establishing separate Israeli and Palestinian states. These are broad descriptions; the article does not set out borders, governing arrangements, or the rights framework for either model. The central difference is whether the future is organised through one shared state or two distinct states.

The Green Party motion backed a single Palestinian state over a two-state solution. Two amendments supported by Zack Polanski were defeated. Those amendments said the structure of any future Palestinian state should be decided by Palestinians, rather than a one-state system being imposed. Polanski later said this was why he would have voted against the motion.

The choice matters because it is a fundamental policy position, not merely a wording change. It affects how the party presents the conflict and what political outcome it supports. The vote’s consequences now include arguments over member control, leadership responsibility, and whether the policy reflects most Greens.

Governments, political movements, and ethnic or religious communities are not the same thing. Criticism of an Israeli government’s actions targets decisions, policies, or conduct by those in office. Zionism refers to a movement for a Jewish state, while antisemitism means hostility or prejudice towards Jewish people. Racism is a broader idea involving the ranking or targeting of people because of perceived race or ethnicity.

The distinction matters because the Green motion treated Zionism as racism, while Ellie Chowns wanted the party to focus on the “horrific actions” of the Israeli government. She said the party should avoid debates over contested terms and unite around criticism of government conduct. That approach separates policy criticism from claims about a movement or a people.

The article shows the practical stakes. Jewish Greens members disagreed over Polanski’s leadership, and research found different patterns in Jewish Green voters’ attachment to Israel and wider Jewish identification as Zionist. Clear language could support criticism while reducing confusion, alienation, and opportunities for extremist or racist capture.