The Green Party Zionism vote has landed the party in serious trouble abroad. After members at the Brighton conference backed a motion declaring Zionism a form of racism, European Green allies voiced dismay, and a senior German Green called the decision unacceptable. The row has also reopened a deeper question about how the party makes its policy.

What Members Voted For

The binding motion passed on Sunday. It says Zionism, the movement for a Jewish state, should be treated like any other form of racism. It also backs a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine, with equal rights for everyone.

Four of the party’s five MPs opposed it.

Anger From Europe’s Greens

The European Green Party, which brings together 47 parties, says it supports a two-state solution and that the new policy cuts against that position. It plans to demand clarity from the English and Welsh leadership and parliamentary group, including how they view Israeli and Jewish self-determination and the protection of Jewish members.

Felix Banaszak, leader of the German Greens, was blunter. He called the motion intolerable and unacceptable, saying it contradicts his party’s belief in Israel’s right to exist. He added that his party would approach partner parties across Europe to work out how to respond.

Resignations and Criticism

Sandy Ruthven, chair of Amnesty International UK’s charitable trust and a long-serving Green, resigned. He accused the party of failing to confront antisemitism.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s European office also condemned the decision, calling it absurd and pointing to its timing, days before the third anniversary of the 7 October Hamas attacks.

A Question of Who Decides

The vote has sharpened a long-running argument over party democracy. Policy is set at two conferences each year, which draw only a small fraction of members. The motion won just over 1,000 votes, roughly 0.4 percent of the membership.

Former co-leader Ellie Chowns said governance needs urgent modernising, noting that fewer than one percent of members take part. She said she understood the European concerns and shared them, though she insisted the Greens have more that unites them than divides them.

Ideas inside the party for reform include:

• Members setting broad priorities while smaller bodies draft detailed policy
• Keeping those bodies accountable to the wider membership
• Finding ways to avoid giving the most time-rich members outsized influence

Not everyone agrees. One insider warned that giving MPs more authority would undermine grassroots democracy, and another senior figure defended direct member control as central to the party’s character.

A Different View From Within

One party source said the German criticism was understandable given differing stances, pointing out that the German Greens support arming Israel, opposed a ceasefire in Gaza and backed cutting Unrwa funding. That, they suggested, shows how far apart the two sides are.

The Leader’s Response

Party leader Zack Polanski said antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state are distinct, and that blurring the two is wrong and makes Jewish people less safe. He said the party must protect both Palestinians and Jewish communities in the UK, and that he will not accept exclusion of anyone because of their religious or communal group. He also credited Green pressure with pushing the government to end trade with illegal settlements.

What to Watch Next

• How the European Green Party responds to the leadership’s answers
• Whether more members or officials resign
• Any move to reform the party’s policymaking structure
• Whether the motion is revisited at a future conference

The Bottom Line

This is both a foreign policy dispute and an internal governance test. The party must now explain its position to allies while deciding whether a system built on member participation can cope with a much larger and more divided membership.