The Green Party of England and Wales entered 2024 on a wave of optimism. Zack Polanski, elected as leader less than a year ago, rode the momentum of Hannah Spencer’s historic byelection win in Greater Manchester. Yet the tide turned dramatically when Polanski contested the Holborn and St Pancras seat, once held by the prime minister, and finished second to Labour’s Sagal Abdi-Wali.
Polanski’s loss did more than dent personal ambition; it coincided with the party’s most contentious policy decision to date. At the recent national conference, members voted – 1,022 in favour – to enshrine a motion declaring Zionism is racism and calling for a single democratic Palestinian state across historic Palestine. The motion made the Greens the first UK party to adopt such a definition, effectively endorsing a one-state solution.
By-election fallout and leadership scrutiny
The Holborn and St Pancras contest was closely watched as a barometer for the Greens’ growing aspirations. Labour secured 45% of the vote, while Polanski garnered 33%, an improvement of 22 percentage points over the party’s 2024 general election share. Despite the uptick, the defeat amplified criticism of Polanski’s leadership. Former co-leader Caroline Lucas, still a prominent voice within the party, argued that the leader should have been present for the conference vote, labeling his absence a “missed opportunity”.
Within the party’s Jewish wing, the response was split. Chair Vivien Lichtenstein publicly demanded Polanski’s resignation, accusing him of evading responsibility for the motion. Conversely, communications officer Annie Gottfried Cohen noted that Polanski had met with the Jewish Greens committee in August, suggesting the chair’s view did not represent the broader Jewish Green membership. A motion of no confidence against Lichtenstein was subsequently tabled.
International reverberations
The motion triggered a swift diplomatic backlash. Israel’s government banned the Jewish-heritage leader from entry, branding the resolution as antisemitic. Parallel statements emerged from the United States and the United Kingdom, with some parliamentary backbenchers urging police investigations. Jewish organisations across Britain expressed alarm, fearing a rise in hostility toward the community.
European Green parties reacted with varying intensity. In Scotland, co-leader Ross Greer supported the motion, though the Scottish Greens do not advocate a single-state model. Across the Channel, German Greens issued a stark rebuke: co-leader Felix Banaszak called the resolution “intolerable”, and veteran activist Jutta Ditfurth warned of a “possible pogrom”. The European Green Party, which unites 47 national parties, declared the UK motion incompatible with its own charter, hinting at possible suspension.
Future prospects for the UK Greens
The immediate concern is whether the party will retain its place within the pan-European Green network. If German Greens pursue formal sanctions, the UK Greens could face suspension or expulsion. Historically, Green parties across Europe have tolerated divergent stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict without punitive action, suggesting the storm might subside if the UK faction moderates its language.
Nonetheless, the motion appears entrenched. Activists who championed the definition invested significant effort, and no amendment to soften the wording has yet succeeded. Internal debate is likely to intensify, especially as Polanski’s leadership term ends within a year; party members will vote on his continuation at the next biennial conference.
Electorally, the controversy may reshape the Greens’ appeal. While sections of the Corbyn-aligned left have praised the stance, mainstream voters and centrist allies remain wary. The party’s ambition to replace Labour as the centre-left anchor now faces the dual challenge of rebuilding trust with Jewish communities and repairing frayed relationships with European Green partners.
In the weeks ahead, the Green Party must navigate a delicate balance: defending its newly adopted policy, managing internal dissent, and mitigating diplomatic fallout. Whether it emerges as a more radical force or retreats to a broader, less polarising platform will determine its relevance in the evolving UK political landscape.
