The Green Party’s conference in Brighton has been left facing a political storm after delegates adopted a motion that describes Zionism as a form of racism and endorses a proposal for a single democratic Palestinian state covering historic Palestine, party sources and press agency reporting said.
Immediate fallout and formal complaints
The motion was carried by conference delegates by a margin of 1,022 to 813, and prompted fresh controversy on Monday with senior figures outside the party lodging formal complaints.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Conference vote | 1,022 for – 813 against |
| Labour referrals | More than a dozen MPs to the equality watchdog; nine MPs to Sussex Police |
More than a dozen Labour MPs reported the Greens to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, saying the motion raised "serious questions", while nine Labour MPs referred the party to Sussex Police to consider whether alleged conduct at conference amounted to criminal offences, the PA Media report said. Sussex Police and the Green Party have been contacted for comment.
Leader seeks to reassure but did not vote
The party’s leader, Zack Polanski, who did not vote on the motion, made a public statement stressing his responsibility to ensure members and supporters feel secure within the party. He said the party must not exclude people on the basis of religion or communal membership, according to the report.
"No-one will be made unwelcome because of their background, their faith, or where they worship."
Polanski’s intervention underlines a fraying of unity between the party’s conference membership and its parliamentary representatives. Four of the Greens’ five MPs opposed the motion, the report added.
International and communal reactions
The motion drew immediate international attention. Israel’s foreign ministry announced a ban on Mr Polanski entering the country, a diplomatic consequence that underlines how party policy decisions can have cross-border implications, the reporting noted. Several Jewish groups described the motion as an attack on the Jewish community.
The motion itself sets out a critical definition of Zionism, framing it as an ideology that supports what it terms an "ethnonationalist Jewish state" and calling for a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine. That language has proved deeply contentious, both inside the Green movement and beyond it.
Political context and next steps
- The vote exposes tensions between the Green membership, which has expanded under the current leadership, and the party’s small cohort of MPs elected at the last general election.
- Formal referrals to the equality regulator and to the police are likely to trigger enquiries that could take weeks or months to resolve and may dominate headlines at least until decisions are announced.
- The diplomatic ban on the party leader raises questions about how the Greens will manage international engagement and relations with diaspora communities going forward.
The party now faces the practical task of reconciling conference policy with the views of its elected cohort and managing the legal and public relations consequences of the complaints. The Green leader’s public assurances that the party will remain open to all backgrounds will be tested as regulators and police consider the referrals, and as party activists and parliamentarians continue the debate internally.
Sussex Police and the Green Party were reported to have been contacted for comment. The PA Media report supplied the account of the vote and subsequent developments.
