Zack Polanski says application of Zionism is racist and no state has right to exist

Zack Polanski supported the Green Party’s broad position that Zionism, in its current practical form, is racist. He said the motion’s debate over wording was unhelpful, but rejected the idea that its central claim was controversial. This matters because he is the party leader, so his comments turned an internal conference motion into a clear statement of leadership policy.

In his BBC interview, Polanski linked his view to the deaths of Palestinians. He cited 75,000 Palestinians allegedly murdered in recent years, including many children, and said people were being killed because they were Palestinian. He described that as evidence of a racist ideology in practice.

Polanski also said Israel does not have a special right to exist under international law, because he believes no state has such a right. He called the two-state solution unrealistic because of Israel’s opposition to it. His comments followed criticism, a difficult leadership period, and the party’s loss of the Holborn and St Pancras byelection.

Zionism is a modern Jewish national movement that supports Jewish self-determination and a Jewish national home in the historic land of Israel. It can be understood politically, culturally, or nationally. Some see it as a response to antisemitism and persecution. Others focus on the displacement and unequal treatment Palestinians experienced during the creation and expansion of Israel.

The disagreement often concerns what Zionism means in practice. Supporters may describe it as national liberation or a form of Jewish identity. Critics may define it as an exclusionary nationalism when state policies privilege Jews over Palestinians. Different people also use the word for different periods, from the original movement to present-day Israeli government policies.

The source article records Polanski’s view that Zionism is racist in practical application, but it does not define Zionism historically. That broader explanation comes from established historical understanding. Because the term covers both ideas and policies, arguments about its meaning can become arguments about history, rights, and current events.

The Green Party’s polling support initially rose sharply under Polanski’s leadership. The article says it climbed from about 10% to 18% earlier this year. That is an increase of roughly eight percentage points, or close to an 80% rise relative to the earlier level. The change suggested that his strategy was attracting wider attention.

The strategy combined economically populist ideas with a stronger focus on Palestine and Gaza. The article presents that shift to the left as initially successful. It does not identify a single cause for the later decline, but lists several pressures surrounding the party.

In recent months, support has tumbled. The article mentions questions about Polanski’s tax affairs, a dispute with police after the Golders Green attack, and the Zionism controversy. It gives no later polling percentage, so the exact scale of the fall cannot be calculated from the available information. Polanski expects voters to return after seeing more of Andy Burnham’s leadership.

The motion created political costs for the Green Party and intensified scrutiny of Polanski’s leadership. He had not attended the vote, which prompted accusations of weak leadership. Afterward, prominent Jewish Green members criticised him, including Vivien Lichtenstein, head of the Jewish Greens. The dispute therefore affected both the party’s public image and its internal relationships.

Polanski rejected those criticisms. He said he had no regrets and was “not sorry at all.” He also pointed to a survey in which he said a majority of Jewish Greens supported the motion. The article gives no survey figures or independent assessment, so that claim cannot be measured from the text.

The controversy came during a wider difficult period. Polanski had also lost the Holborn and St Pancras byelection, while the party’s polling support fell after earlier gains. He blamed wider political developments for the next phase, saying voters would increasingly see a difference between Andy Burnham’s rhetoric and actions. The article does not report further electoral consequences.

Historically, Zionism developed in late nineteenth-century Europe as a movement seeking Jewish self-determination and a national home in the historic land of Israel. It grew amid antisemitism, persecution, and debates about Jewish identity. After the Holocaust and the Second World War, international support for a Jewish state increased, contributing to Israel’s establishment in 1948.

The creation of Israel involved competing national claims. Many Jews saw statehood as protection and liberation. Palestinians opposed the loss of their homes, land, and political future. The war surrounding Israel’s creation produced mass Palestinian displacement, while later wars, occupation, settlement expansion, and violence deepened the dispute. These historical details are established background beyond the source article.

The conflict continues because Israelis and Palestinians seek security, rights, recognition, and self-determination in the same land. Zionism is therefore understood differently depending on whether the focus is Jewish national protection or Palestinian dispossession. The article addresses its present political meaning but does not provide this historical account.

The two-state solution is a diplomatic framework for creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Supporters argue that separate states could provide both peoples with national self-determination, international recognition, and a clearer basis for security. It has been the main international diplomatic model for resolving the conflict.

Its critics say implementation is increasingly difficult. They point to disputes over borders, Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements, security control, and the division of territory. Palestinians also question whether a viable state could be created, while many Israelis fear renewed attacks or loss of security. These details come from established background rather than the article itself.

Polanski called the solution “for the birds,” arguing that Israel opposes it. The article presents that as his reason for rejecting the approach, but does not examine Israeli policy in detail. Whether the solution remains possible depends on political leadership, public support, territorial arrangements, and agreement on security and rights. The article offers no forecast beyond Polanski’s criticism.

International law does not contain one universal rule giving every country an unconditional “right to exist.” Statehood is usually assessed through criteria such as a population, territory, government, and capacity for foreign relations. Recognition by other states is politically important, but recognition and legal statehood are not identical. These principles come from established international-law understanding, not the article.

The law also protects sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and peoples’ right to self-determination. The United Nations Charter prohibits aggression and requires disputes to be handled peacefully. A state’s existence does not legalise occupation, annexation, discrimination, or attacks on civilians. Nor does a people’s claim to self-determination automatically settle borders or create an immediate state.

Polanski used this distinction when he said no state has a right to exist under international law. His statement reflects one legal framing, but the article does not explain the relevant rules. In practice, international recognition, membership in international organisations, diplomacy, and effective control all shape how states operate, while legal disputes may remain unresolved.