Good for them. About time someone spoke out.
“I think there is a strong risk that the motion as passed contravenes the Equality Act 2010, which applies to political parties, as it will discriminate against and harass people who hold Zionist beliefs and Jewish people more generally,” he said.
Zionism when defined in the broad sense of supporting a Jewish nation state “is likely to be a protected belief” under the act, he said.
Hi, stupid American here, and, uhh, the fuck did I just read?
Is there really a law in the UK that says political parties aren’t allowed to “discriminate” against members based on their political beliefs? And that treats adopting a policy position as “discrimination?” You literally couldn’t adopt any policy ever, like, “I think we should hire more dogcatchers, but the party adopted a policy position of hiring fewer dogcatchers, therefore I’m being discriminated against for my belief.” What?
I’m guessing this is one of those cases where Zionists get special, extremely arbitrary treatment. Looking into this Equality Act, it specifically lists “gender reassignment” as a protected category and I’m pretty sure there’s no legal requirement for every party in the UK to support trans rights. But like, even more directly, are parties required to uphold any other forms of ethnonationalism? If a party condemns white nationalism as racist, by this logic, wouldn’t that violate the Equality Act?? Is this barrister just talking nonsense, or is that real?
Zionists are nuts, man.
There are some very dodgy people quoted in this article talking a load of crap but the Party has been previously successfully sued by its former deputy leader, an odious man named Sharar Ali, for how we handled his discplinary case for transphobia. However, we do have a right to set philosophical standards on the expression of discriminatory beliefs but have to be very careful how we go about that because we frankly can’t afford another Sharar Ali.
I oppose genocide. I support the Green Party.
Yvette Cooper: Lock. Them. Up.
zionism is a right wing political movement which calls for eradicating gaza. this is just the green party acknowledging reality, which the billionaire media hates.
I posted this to the United Kingdom community here but for some reason it was deleted almost immediately. I’m not sure why as the mods haven’t said.
I somewhat agree with the “Zionism is racism” stance. Depending on how you define Zionism, it is very akin to white nationalism: You want to create a nation exclusively for one group of people, to the detriment of everyone else. We see the genocidal approach that has resulted from this dangerous viewpoint.
Could it be that in some world Zionism could be peaceful? Maybe, maybe not. That’s not the world we live in though.
I can see where the motion is coming from. That said, is it for us in the UK to say that a one-state solution is the correct one? I think that’s overstepping our boundaries.
Saying genocide is unacceptable would have been enough imo. Saying Zionism is bad I think is also reasonable. I’m not sure about solutionizing from afar.
If zionism means “we have the right to live and worship in our ancestral homeland” only and has nothing to do with power, government, control, etc. then that sounds fine to me (I mostly think humans should be able to do that everywhere). I know some people believe in zionism in that sense.
As soon as it becomes exclusive/exclusionary or involves control or power, or involves “chosenness”, it’s into racist territory IMO.
edit: I can’t spell.
The motion defined was it meant by Zionism which was support for a nationalist ethnostate. Any other definition of Zionism with respect to this motion is moving the goalposts
That said, is it for us in the UK to say that a one-state solution is the correct one? I think that’s overstepping our boundaries.
We’re already overstepping our boundaries by arming Israel. That’s a much worse case of solutionizing from afar. It’s a rather final solution from afar.
This stance is one that says “This is morally wrong”. Supporting a one state solution is just saying “We think this is a good road to peace and will support all efforts to go this way”. It’s not a demand on anyone. I’m sure green party members will be happy to see anything that stops the killing.
I don’t really see what you’re wringing your hands over.
We’re already overstepping our boundaries by arming Israel
Well yes, as a country, we should be sanctioning Israel as a whole to put an end to that. To make it illegal to do such a thing, rather than just wagging our fingers.
Calling out a genocide where we see one and fully divesting from it is one thing.
I don’t think that necessarily gives us the go ahead to tell other countries how to resolve their problems. That, and I think the world is not really ready to hear this. We risk alienating people, even if we are right.
You might call me a coward, or a centrist or something, but I wonder if this was a smart move. There are some things I want us to have very clear policies on: environmantalism, support of LGTBQ people, being against genocide etc. I don’t want to cater to or placate Zionists. I just wonder if we overstretched here and may have shot ourselves in the foot around getting support from less informed or more moderate Greens.
Seems like that’s exactly what’s happening, to some extent: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/oct/05/green-party-england-wales-zionism-racism-vote-europe-germany though the Greens in Germany are pretty far gone.
Could it be that in some world Zionism could be peaceful? Maybe, maybe not.
It would really help to study the history of how and who brought about Zionism. It is maybe less racist but definitely coloniser ideology.
I’m not sure about solutionizing from afar.
Have to do something. Can’t wait for perfect thinking that the perfect will everyone back who got killed during that time. It’s a step in the right direction. Tsunamis are made of droplets.
It is maybe less racist but definitely coloniser ideology.
It’s inherently racist precisely because it is a colonizer ideology.
Labour’s new position on the issue has forced the Greens to shift left. Smart move by Labour.
labours new position of being to the right of reform and being pro genocide, yes.
The Greens haven’t moved a millimetre left ince Burnham came in. They were already there.
This was going to happen long before labour did anything. It was going to be voted on online a few months ago, but the vote got fillibustered by people who opposed it.
Filibustered by a suspiciously large number of people who had just joined the party.
Equates Zionists.with genocide.
FTFY
I will fly my Palestinian flag proudly on October 7th.
I think what the Israeli government has done to the Palestinians is despicable but I’ve got mixed feelings about this.
I think they should have gone further and called Zionism anti-Semitic. Nothing has done more damage to the Jewish people post WW2 than Zionism.
I’ve got mixed feelings about this.
Why is that? Israel is by definition an apartheid ethnostate and was always intended as such. It doesn’t get much more racist than that.
The problem is that there is more to the motion than its title, which is the same for most things, really. The problems with this motion include the insistence on a one state solution (against the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people) and a threat of wholesale proscription of Jewish communities.
I say this as a Green member - this motion overshadows really decent policy passed at this conference including two BDS motions. This is a highly controversial motion within the party and it was only carried over the line by entryists. 4/5 of our MPs opposed it as well as the leader and one of the deputy leaders.
If you want to understand things, you have to read past the headline. It’s the only way.
How do you imagine a two state solution working when one of those states is an ethnosupremacist theocracy? Are you just trying to delay any action being taken until every Palestinian has been cleansed, or do you believe an equal, multicultural Palestinian state is somehow discriminatory against Jews?
It’s simply not up to us as British people to decide whether Palestinians or indeed Israelis, should organise themselves this way or that way. It is clearly within our remit to forcefully denounce violence and discrimination and systems of oppression, but what the affected people choose to do is not for us to tell them.
It is for us to produce the economic and political pressure for Israel to submit to making necessary changes in the interest of peace and equality. The exact nature of those changes is no more our business than it was to preside over this region 80 years ago. If the Palestinian people hold a legitimate referendum and decide to pursue a single state, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. We have no business telling them that that should hold a referendum to produce that result.
We organised them that way! We are the reason it’s such a fucking mess, we can expend our resources removing Israel instead of telling Palestinians it’s their problem now.
People like you are exactly why there’s a genocide going on, because you’re not willing to confront our complicity in the situation.
I explicitly said that it’s our responsibility to apply economic and political pressure to Israel. But without a clear mandate from the Palestinian people, it’s not our place to try to dissolve the Israeli state. The Palestinian people do not agree on the eventual solution to their problems but they do agree that applying economic pressure via BDS, even if it causes Palestinians harm in the short term, is the mechanism for achieving a better situation for their people. We accordingly support them by applying BDS, in line with their wishes.
It’s simply not up to us as British people to decide whether Palestinians or indeed Israelis, should organise themselves this way or that way.
I don’t know, you guys seemed pretty gung-ho about the idea while creating the state of Israel from Palestine.
It’s almost as if some of us are trying to learn from the past rather than endlessly repeating the same mistakes.
So what, you transplant a foreign people into another land, move on, and then when the foreign people start eating the natives you just sigh loudly and proclaim ‘we’ve learned from our mistakes and we won’t interfere no longer’ ?
The problems with this motion include the insistence on a one state solution
Because only the most ignorant or naive think that being a separate nation protects anyone from the aggression of the West’s favorite fascist regime.
If you think being a neighboring country that isn’t aggressive towards Israel keeps you safe, you should have a word with someone from the Golan Heights or the part of Syria they RECENTLY started illegally occupying.
(against the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people)
Gonna need a source on that.
and a threat of wholesale proscription of Jewish communities.
That sounds like classic antisemitic conflating of Zionism and Jewdom, as well as ridiculous hyperbole. Specifics, please.
If you want to understand things, you have to read past the headline. It’s the only way.
I did. None of the things you claimed (other than 4/5 of the MPs being against it) were actually in the article afair from reading it last night.
As someone who hasn’t read the actual motion itself - sure, being a separate state doesn’t protect against Israel, but the issue seems to be that this motion insists on a one state solution.
Why?
Being a single state obviously doesn’t help. So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
this motion insists on a one state solution.
Why?
Because a single state that doesn’t discriminate based on religion and ethnicity IS the only solution that could possibly create lasting peace and justice.
As long as there’s a Jewish supremacist apartheid ethnostate on or next to their land, no Palestinian will be safe.
Being a single ethnostate with several ethnicities being oppressed by the dominant one obviously doesn’t help
Fixed it for you. Like South Africa before it, the solution is to overthrow the tyrannical apartheid system of government, not portioning out a tiny parcel of land next to it that the overlords will always scapegoat and vilify.
So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
See above.
Yeah, God forbid that your concerns should ever go so far as supporting someone doing anything about the problem.
what the Israeli government has done to the Palestinians is
despicableG E N O C I D EIt’s not
wrongmeanterribleregrettablebadthe word to use is G E N O C I D E.Just an FYI in case you want your butisms to be taken in good faith.
“Genocide” isn’t an adjective. Calling genocide despicable isn’t invalid.
I suggest you spend the next couple of days really pondering about your true self and your deeper motivations if you’re having “mixed feelings” about a political ideology actively targeting and murdering children (with bombs and even snipers) because those children are in the very words of those ideologues, “vermin”.
Chamberlain, at least, had the excuse that his actions happened before the NAZIs actively started trying to exterminate people.
I’m not the OP, but allow me to share my mixed feelings.
I agree with the motion. But it’s a vote loser. Voters are idiots and a not insignificant number will be convinced by the British press that this is anti-semitic, c.f. Jeremy Corbyn.
The Greens could have had all the right policies vis-a-vis arms sales, sanctions, BDS etc. without passing this motion, and for as long as they are a threat to Labour, that would have some weight in the public discourse. But I would be very surprised if passing this motion doesn’t ensure that Polanski loses the by-election, and I fear that’s going to begin a slide back into irrelevance for the Greens.
It has been my experience living in Britain for over a decade and during the Leave Referendum that no matter what left-wingers say or don’t say, the British Press will convince the idiots that they’re bad in some way.
If there’s one thing the whole Corbyn affair showed is that trying to avoid being tainted by the billionaire-owned Press is a mugs game and just reinforces the effectiveness of their manipulation.
If you’re constantly shifting in what you say and avoiding strong statements of principle to avoid the risk that the press paint you as something that sounds bad, you end up making yourself seem shifty, vague and unprincipled, which paradoxically makes it easier for the Press to paint you with anything they feel like as slandering is far more believable against people who don’t stand firm by what they claim to believe.
That recipe of “don’t say or act in ways that the Press might call ‘extremist’” has been tried again and again, most notably with Corbyn, and the result was invariably either failure or the party in question morphing so much it ended up having nothing to do with the original party (Labour’s change from what it was before Blair being a perfect example of the latter).
From what I’ve seen in more than one country putting accommodating to the criticism of people who are your adversaries above your own principles doesn’t work, whilst taking principled stances and not dancing to the tune played by the billionaire Press is something that at least historically worked, even in the UK (which is how the country ended up, at least for a while, with power in the hands of people who created things like the NHS).
This, by the way, is also my experience in other countries in Europe I lived in - once I returned to my own native Portugal were I also became involved in Politics (I was a member of the Green Party in the UK for a while when I lived there), I saw the exact same thing happen in the small leftwing party I became a member of (which had surged from an historical 5 or 6% to about 14% of votes by the time I became a member) as the leadership was played with very similar tricks (in this case it was mainly about being called “extremist” by the mainstream supposedly left party) and ending up collapsing the vote in the party down to 2%.
“Pragmatism” in genuine left-wing parties that puts even the strongest of moral principles (and being against child mass murder is probably one of the strongest principles there is) aside fearing criticism from others, all driven by the desire to gain votes in order to gain power, just makes a party and its leadership look shifty and unprincipled - “just more liars trying to get our votes” - which is deadly if you’re a left-wing party as left-wing ideologies are about doing what’s best for the many, not the few.
More in general and going back to my original post, if even one’s principle that “mass murder or children is unacceptable” can just be put on the shelf like that out of mere fear of what’s essentially “what will other people say” mixed with “what if we don’t get more votes”, then one doesn’t actually have principles and what drives them as a person is something else altogether than principles.
Personally, I don’t think you can be genuinely somebody who wants “the greatest good for the greatest number” (the core left-wing principle) if you can’t even openly put forward the best suggestions to stop children being mass murdered because you fear what the billionaire owner press might say.
Nowhere did I suggest that the principle of being against child murder should be abandoned. Sanctions against Israel and critical support for the BDS movement are policies that are not contingent on the passing of a “Zionism is racism” motion, and can be justified on their own terms.
The media will always line up against a left-wing party (or anyone to the left of Thatcher), and part of the job of being a left-wing party is dealing with that, and not giving them easy wins. As much as I liked Corbyn and his policies, he was bad at his job because he could not engage well with bad faith actors. And you just have to be able to do that to win elections. Polanski is actually quite good at that, because he’s able to to bring a conversation back round to what he wants to say without looking like he’s avoiding questions.
Passing the Zionism is racism motion now is essentially the green party shooting itself in the foot with a shotgun. Almost every major Jewish organisation in the UK (the board of deputies and the Jewish leadership council for two) is explicitly Zionist - and to be clear, I think that’s bad, actually - and as a result are now going to denounce the green party as anti-semitic. And now Polanski is going to have spend time justifying that rather than getting his actual messages out while trying to fight a by-election.
If “almost every major Jewish organisation in the UK (the board of deputies and the Jewish leadership council for two) is explicitly Zionist” then they are Racist.
(Mind you, it’s not exactly a shocker that Tory aligned organizations - which most of those are - are racist)
Not pointing it out because of nothing other than their ethnicity is itself Racism: treating people and groups of people differently because of their ethnicity is the very definition of Racial Descrimination.
Racists Jews are Racist, just like Racist Whites are Racist, Racist Blacks are Racist and so on - the actions and the words of a person are what makes them a Racist, and only other Racists would think their ethnicity is relevant in any way form or shape.
So essentially you’re making the case for the Green Party to be unprincipled and practice racial discrimination in order to not be called “racist” by the very people who are so extremely racist that they’re supremacists.
That’s similar to in the 1930 not calling NAZIs racist in order to not have the German diaspora in Britain say you’re “against the Arian race”.
Whichever way you go you lose, so better go down the route of sticking to your principles and not actually act in a racial discriminating way just to soothe people who are rabidly racist and who, no mater what you do, hate your guts because you’re a left-winger whilst they themselves are far-right.
(Pandering to them because you fear their words is strategically idiotic because that’s just giving your ideological enemies the tools to control your own speech, which what here in Portugal I saw sink the small left-wing party I was in when the leadership started “moderating” what they said in response to accusations of being “extreme left” from the mainstream parties with subsequently a crash in the votes the party got with part of the vote just disappearing and another part going to other left-wing parties).
If indeed you want to make sure that nobody can confuse the Green Party’s principled stand against supremacist ideologies (any supremacist ideology, not just Zionism) with racism against the ethnicity that ideology claims to represent (which in this case is an interpretation those Tory-aligned Jewish organizations will try hard to push) how about openly supporting organizations from that ethnicity which are against that ideology, such as in this case Jews For Peace?!
The inner racist coming up?
