Polanski Vows No One Will Be Excluded From Greens After Party Backs Motion Calling Zionism Racist

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has broken his silence over a contentious conference vote that declared Zionism a form of racism, insisting that nobody would be shut out of his party over their faith or community ties. In his first public remarks since the motion passed, Polanski said he took seriously his duty to ensure every member felt safe and welcome, adding that he would not tolerate any exclusion or refusal to engage with individuals because of the religious or communal body they belong to.

The statement followed days of mounting pressure on the Green leader, who had declined interview requests on Monday as criticism of the policy decision intensified. Polanski, who is Jewish, also drew a firm line between antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state, arguing the two are and must always remain completely distinct. He said his party and its leadership were committed to deeply held values of compassion, fairness and equality for all.

The motion at the centre of the storm defines Zionism as an ideology that supports an ethnonationalist Jewish state and backs the creation of a single democratic Palestinian state across all of historic Palestine. It was brought forward by a group of activists at the party's conference in Brighton and carried by 1,022 votes to 813. The text claims the real and material manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians.

The vote has laid bare tensions between the party's rapidly expanded membership under Polanski and the five MPs elected at the last general election. Polanski himself did not take part in Sunday's ballot, and four of the five Green MPs voted against the motion. The result has also drawn a sharp response from abroad, with Israel's foreign ministry banning Polanski from entering the country, while several Jewish groups have characterised the motion as an attack on the Jewish community.

Political fallout has escalated on multiple fronts. More than a dozen Labour MPs reported the Greens to the equality watchdog on Monday, arguing the decision raised serious questions about whether Jewish members could participate freely and equally in the party. A separate group of nine Labour MPs referred the Green Party to Sussex Police, asking the force to examine whether alleged possible antisemitic offences at the conference warranted a criminal investigation. Sussex Police and the Green Party have both been approached for comment.

The letters to the Equality and Human Rights Commission were organised by former Home Office minister Mike Tapp. They warned that Jewish members' religious and communal connections could expose them to complaints or disciplinary action, and highlighted that amendments designed to protect Jewish members attending Zionist synagogues had been voted down. The commission, which regulates equality law in Great Britain and previously found failings in how Labour handled antisemitism, said it would consider each complaint carefully but had not launched an investigation at this stage. It noted that political parties, like all duty-bearers, must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and take steps to avoid discrimination.

The controversy has also strained the Greens' international ties. The European Green Party, the umbrella body that includes the Green Party for England and Wales, issued a statement saying it wanted to unequivocally distance itself from the motion. It said it would immediately demand clarity from the party's leadership on how Jewish people and the principle of self-determination would be protected.

Within the party, Green MP Ellie Chowns told Radio 4's PM programme she was deeply saddened that the motion had become official policy but rejected the suggestion that it was antisemitic. She described it as underpinned by principled opposition to the actions of the Israeli government. Chowns also suggested the party's policymaking processes needed review, pointing out that fewer than one percent of the party's more than 200,000 members had taken part in the vote, raising questions about how representative the outcome truly was.

The episode has exposed a broader divide inside the Greens, a party whose membership has surged in recent years under Polanski's leadership. The gulf between the activist base that dominates conference decisions and the parliamentary party, whose MPs face a wider electorate, has rarely been so visible. Four of the five MPs opposing the motion underlines how far the parliamentary wing is from the membership's mood on this issue.

For Polanski, the challenge now is managing a dispute that touches on faith, foreign policy and party governance simultaneously. His attempt to reassure Jewish members while defending the legitimacy of the debate may satisfy neither side. Critics want stronger action against what they see as a hostile environment, while supporters of the motion regard it as a legitimate expression of solidarity with Palestinians.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's involvement adds a further layer of risk for the Greens. The watchdog's scrutiny of Labour over antisemitism became a defining saga for that party, and any formal investigation into the Greens would carry similar reputational weight. For now, the commission is only assessing complaints, but the precedent means the threat is unlikely to fade quickly.

The police referral from nine Labour MPs raises the stakes further. While it is unclear whether any investigation will follow, the very fact of a criminal complaint linked to conference proceedings is unusual and signals how bitterly the row is being contested. Green officials have yet to respond publicly to that referral.

The wider political context is a UK left still grappling with how to discuss Israel and Palestine without fracturing fragile coalitions. The Green motion has become a flashpoint in that debate, drawing in international Green bodies, British equality regulators and law enforcement. How Polanski navigates the coming weeks, and whether the party revisits its policymaking rules, will shape both his leadership and the Greens' public standing.