Ex-Greens co-leader urges council groups to reject Zionism policy

Adrian Ramsay wants Green councillors to put local governing arrangements ahead of defending the party’s controversial conference motion. He urged groups to reject the “Zionism is racism” policy when that would help them remain in power with other parties. He also opposed the motion before the conference vote.

His advice is practical as well as political. Ramsay said councillors should make their opposition clear if they genuinely disagreed with the motion. He argued this could reassure residents and allow Green-led councils to keep delivering services. He praised groups in Lewes, Warwick, Rother, and Southwark for disowning the policy.

The call puts Ramsay at odds with co-leader Zack Polanski and the official party line. Labour has threatened to end council deals unless local Greens reject the motion. Ramsay warned that collapsing administrations could hand power to rightwing coalitions and put services at risk.

The newly adopted motion makes two linked claims. It describes “Zionism as racism” and calls for a single Palestinian state in place of Israel. The article presents this as a major shift in party policy, because it rejects the idea of maintaining Israel alongside a Palestinian state.

The wording matters because it has immediate consequences beyond political debate. Labour has ordered local parties to end power-sharing arrangements with Green groups that do not disown the motion. Several Green groups have therefore rejected it, including Lewes, Warwick, Rother, and Southwark. Their decisions show how national policy can affect local government.

The motion remains official Green policy for at least two years under party rules. Zack Polanski says he will not overturn it, but wants to amend it at the first opportunity by removing the call for a single Palestinian state. Adrian Ramsay supports both peoples’ rights to statehood and self-determination.

Green councillors in coalition councils face a direct political choice. Labour has ordered its local parties to terminate power-sharing deals if Green partners do not disown the motion. Rejecting it can therefore remove Labour’s stated reason for ending the arrangement and help Greens remain in government.

Southwark provides a concrete example. Its Green councillors disowned the policy to maintain a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Lewes, Warwick, and Rother also contain Green groups or councillors who have rejected the motion. The mechanism is local: a group’s public position determines whether another party is willing to keep governing with it.

Ramsay says preserving these administrations matters because they deliver services and make a difference for residents. He warned that if coalitions collapse, the replacement may often be a rightwing coalition. The immediate implication is that a national policy dispute could reshape local control and affect council services.

Labour has instructed local Labour parties to end governing arrangements with Green groups that continue supporting the “Zionism is racism” motion. These arrangements are power-sharing deals on councils, where Labour and Greens jointly control local government. Labour’s demand makes acceptance of the motion a condition for continuing cooperation.

The policy has already produced local reactions. Green groups or councillors in Lewes, Warwick, and Rother have rejected the motion. Southwark Greens also disowned it, specifically to maintain a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. These examples show how national party pressure is influencing council-level decisions.

Adrian Ramsay called Labour’s ultimatum predictable but said Green councillors should not be bullied by a national diktat. He nevertheless urged clear opposition where councillors genuinely disagreed. If local Greens refuse, Labour may withdraw from coalitions, potentially causing administrations to collapse and allowing rightwing groups to take power.

The motion is expected to remain official Green Party policy for at least two years. Zack Polanski explained that party rules prevent the policy from being overturned sooner. This gives the controversial wording a guaranteed period on the party’s books, even as local groups distance themselves from it.

Polanski has drawn a distinction between overturning and amending the motion. He said he will not try to overturn it, but wants to remove its call for a single Palestinian state at the first available opportunity. The motion’s description of Zionism as racism would therefore remain unless changed through another party process.

That timetable prolongs the dispute between national and local Green politicians. Adrian Ramsay wants councillors to reject the motion where necessary to preserve coalitions. Polanski supports keeping it for now, while several council groups have already disowned it. The policy will continue shaping party relationships and local governing arrangements.

Zionism is a political and national movement supporting Jewish self-determination, historically through a Jewish national home or state in the land associated with Israel and Palestine. The term covers different views, but it is commonly connected with the establishment and continued existence of Israel. This definition adds context to the motion’s claim that Zionism is racism.

The dispute is politically charged because people attach different meanings and consequences to the word. Supporters may understand Zionism as Jewish national liberation and security. Critics may associate it with unequal power, Palestinian displacement, or the denial of Palestinian rights. Some people therefore distinguish between support for Israel’s existence and particular policies of its governments.

The article shows the disagreement inside the Green Party. Ramsay rejects the motion and supports statehood and self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis. Polanski will not overturn it, although he wants to remove the single-state proposal. Several local Green groups have already disowned the policy.

Statehood means having a recognised political entity with its own government, territory, and institutions. Self-determination means that a people can decide its political status and pursue its social, cultural, and economic future. In this debate, the concepts concern whether Palestinians and Israelis can exercise collective political rights.

The article presents a direct contrast. The Green motion calls for a single Palestinian state in place of Israel. Ramsay rejects that approach and says the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis to statehood and self-determination must be upheld. His position therefore supports political recognition for both national communities rather than replacing one state with another.

This disagreement affects more than terminology. It shapes Green Party policy and relationships between local parties. Ramsay argues that calling out alleged genocide and war crimes in Gaza should be combined with equal political rights. Polanski wants to remove the single-state call, but says the motion itself should remain for at least two years.