Zack Polanski Says Zionism Is Racist in Practice, Defends Green Motion
Green leader tells the BBC no state has a right to exist under international law and says the party's motion was not controversial
By AXY Politics Desk ·
Key points
- Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, said in a BBC interview that Zionism in its current form is racist.
- He said no state has a right to exist under international law and called the idea of a two-state solution ‘for the birds’.
- Polanski did not attend the conference vote on the motion and said he has no regrets about how he handled it.
- Vivien Lichtenstein, chair of the Jewish Greens, criticised his absence from the vote.
Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, has said that Zionism in its current form is racist, that no country has a right to exist, and that a party motion on the subject was not controversial. He made the remarks in an interview with the BBC broadcast on Sunday, two weeks after Green members at the party's conference approved a motion equating Zionism with racism.
The interview, conducted by the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, drew immediate attention because it went further than many party leaders are willing to go on a subject that is deeply contested in British politics. Polanski was not in the hall for the vote, a absence that critics have described as a lack of leadership. He nonetheless said he agreed with the broad thrust of the motion, while arguing that it was unhelpful to spend time on what he called a ‘debate about semantics’.
What the Green leader said
Asked whether he thought Zionism was racist, Polanski replied: “I don’t think this is actually controversial.” He went on to link the idea to the human toll of the conflict in Gaza, saying: “What’s controversial is that 75,000 Palestinians have been murdered in the last few years, including more child amputees than ever in modern history.” The 75,000 figure is his own; it is not drawn from an independent source in the material reviewed for this report. He continued: “So when you take that to account, the fact that they’re being murdered because they’re Palestinian – that’s very obviously a racist ideology.”
Polanski then summarised his position: “I think Zionism is racism in the practical application of it. Now the conference had a debate about the motion, about the word. I said I think debates about words are unhelpful, and I still think that.”
When asked whether he believed Israel had a right to exist, Polanski, who is Jewish, said: “I don’t think any state has a right to exist under international law.” He also said the idea of a two-state solution was “for the birds”, arguing that Israel opposes it. He did not elaborate on what alternative arrangement he would support.
Background: Zionism and the Israel-Gaza conflict
Zionism is the political movement that emerged in the late nineteenth century to establish a Jewish homeland, and it became the basis for the state of Israel, founded in 1948. For most people in Britain and elsewhere, the word is associated with Jewish national identity and the state itself. Many Jewish organisations and individuals regard support for Zionism as central to their identity, which is why the term has become a flashpoint when it is used in political debate. Critics of Israeli government policy, by contrast, often argue that some Zionist positions and practices amount to discrimination against Palestinians. That disagreement sits at the centre of the dispute now facing the Greens.
The current controversy is also shaped by the war in Gaza, which began after Hamas-led attacks on Israel in October 2023. The conflict has caused large numbers of deaths and civilian suffering, and it has sharply polarised opinion across the political spectrum in Britain. Figures on casualties vary by source, and the Guardian report does not provide an independent count, so readers should treat Polanski’s specific number as his claim rather than an established total.
The two-state solution, under which Israelis and Palestinians would each have their own state, has been a long-standing framework for international efforts to resolve the conflict. Polanski’s dismissal of it is significant because it moves beyond criticism of a particular government toward a broader challenge to the framework that many Western governments have endorsed.
Why the motion split the party
Polanski did not attend the conference vote, and that absence has become a central point of criticism. Supporters of the motion say the leader should be seen to stand behind the party’s democratic decisions. Critics say a leader who did not take part in a vote on such a sensitive issue has left members unclear about where he stands. Polanski rejected the suggestion that he had done anything wrong, saying: “I’m not sorry at all.”
He also pointed to the Jewish Greens, a group within the party. He said he had respect for its chair, Vivien Lichtenstein, and that the two had partly co-founded the group. He added: “Actually, when the Jewish Greens were surveyed about this motion, a majority supported it.” The Guardian report does not include details of that survey, so this remains Polanski’s account.
Lichtenstein has been critical of how the leader handled the matter. In her response she said: “Zack should have joined conference online, listened to the speeches for and against and, crucially, spoken for those amendments he supported, then voted.” Her comments point to a dispute not only about the motion’s substance but also about how the party’s leadership conducts itself during internal debates.
Why it matters beyond the Green Party
The Greens have grown into a significant force in British politics, and their positions on Israel and Gaza have drawn attention from voters, community groups and rival parties. When a party leader says a state has no right to exist, the statement carries weight well beyond the party’s own membership. It raises questions for Jewish voters and for anyone concerned about antisemitism, which many Jewish organisations link to attacks on the legitimacy of Israel. It also raises questions for those who believe criticism of Israeli policy is legitimate and should be discussed openly without being equated with hostility toward Jews.
Polanski’s insistence that debates about words are unhelpful may also be read as an attempt to move the argument from definitions toward policy and human rights. Supporters of that approach argue that the Palestinian death toll and the treatment of civilians are more important than the label applied to the ideology behind government actions. Opponents argue that the label matters, because it shapes how people understand both Jewish identity and the conflict itself.
What could happen next
Analysts following the party expect the controversy to test how far the Greens can hold together a leadership that has taken a more confrontational line on Israel while retaining Jewish members who disagree. Several outcomes are possible. The party could clarify its position in a further statement, members could continue to challenge the leadership internally, or the issue could become a central theme in media scrutiny of the Greens in the coming weeks.
For the public, the most immediate thing to watch is whether the party elaborates on what it means by a motion equating Zionism with racism, and whether Polanski expands on his view that no state has a right to exist under international law. Those positions will shape how voters, commentators and other parties respond. Readers should also watch for any further data on the casualty figure Polanski cited, since the number will be closely scrutinised by researchers and campaigners on all sides.
The interview leaves the Greens with a clear challenge: explaining to members, voters and critics where the leadership draws the line between criticism of Israel and the rejection of a Jewish state’s existence, and whether that line can be defended in a way that satisfies both supporters and opponents of the motion.
Questions and answers
Who is Zack Polanski?
Zack Polanski is the leader of the Green Party in England and Wales. He is Jewish and gave an interview to the BBC in which he discussed Zionism and the party's recent motion on the issue.
What did Zack Polanski say about Zionism?
Polanski said Zionism in its current form is racist and argued that its practical application is racism. He said the party's motion was not controversial and that debates about words are unhelpful.
Why is Zack Polanski facing criticism?
He did not attend the party conference vote on the motion equating Zionism with racism, which has led to accusations of a lack of leadership. Vivien Lichtenstein, chair of the Jewish Greens, said he should have joined online, listened to the debate and voted.
What happens next for the Green Party over this row?
The report does not set out a planned response. Analysts expect the controversy to test how the party holds together its leadership and members, and watchers will look for any clarification of the motion and its wording.
Topics: Zack Polanski, Green Party, Zionism, Israel, Gaza, Vivien Lichtenstein, Jewish Greens, Laura Kuenssberg
Sources: The Guardian Politics