I strongly oppose the Green Party’s adoption of the “Zionism is Racism” motion – both its substance and the process behind such a misguided, divisive policy.
This is not an abstract debate for me. I am the descendant of Jewish migrants and refugees. My mother fled with her family from the Nazis while my great-grandparents were murdered.
My family history has shaped my belief that people must be safe, treated with dignity and able to live without fear because of who they are.
So I am deeply troubled – and even frightened – when a core part of many Jews’ identity is declared inherently illegitimate.
My main objection is to the simplistic definition that “Zionism is racism”, making opposition to Zionism formal Green Party policy.
The term means different things to different people. Some forms of Zionism are indeed racist and oppressive but historically most Jews have understood it to be a call for security and self-determination.
A Green Party committed to universal human rights and opposing discrimination should recognise that and respect the rights of oppressed groups.
Jewish members like me must be able to belong to synagogues and attend community events, without fears that this will automatically be considered racist or lead to disciplinary action.
Our organisations contain people with diverse views about Israel and Zionism. If Jews are challenged simply because of their identity or associations, acceptable political debate turns into anti-semitism.
I stand firmly with all Jewish communities, who have faced repeated attacks. Even my own synagogue in Hove needs security guards at services.
I am also worried about the processes leading up to the motion. Issues raised by Jewish members in the run-up to conference were not given full consideration.
None of this diminishes my commitment to Palestinian rights. I oppose the occupation and settler violence, the genocide in Gaza and oppression of Palestinians.
I support equality, security and justice for all people in Palestine and Israel, including their right to determine their own political future. Those arrangements should not be imposed from outside.
The party’s leaders have said that Palestinian and Jewish rights are not in conflict. All Greens must demonstrate this in practice.
I reject the proposition that Zionism, in all its forms, is inherently racist and so I will use my rights under the Green Party’s constitution to refuse to abide by this motion.
My election in Queen’s Park shows how many people share our belief that Green values are a force for good.
I have worked in my community for decades, campaigning for public services, climate action and fair treatment for all, especially those facing prejudice like trans people and migrants.
These are the Green politics I will continue to work for: inclusive, principled and rooted in our communities.
I will not be forced out of the Green Party by those opposed to my identity, and I will challenge arguments that are wrong, even at personal or political risk.
Remaining silent would betray my history and the principles that brought me into Green politics.
Councillor Mark Strong is a Green member of Brighton and Hove City Council.
Leave the party then.
An incredibly disappointing from our newly appointed Councillor.
This is what appeasement looks like.
Mark had an opportunity now to take an unequivocal stance and stand down from the party.
The amount of Jew hatred that has been unleashed in such a small number of days has given me whiplash.
Just today, I was at the hairdresser and found myself listening to a conversation in which antisemitism was being casually normalised and even celebrated, seemingly without the slightest awareness of how threatening and distressing that might feel to a Jewish person sitting just a few feet away. I felt trapped, and then suddenly found myself crying uncontrollably for the remaining 80 minutes of my appointment, to my horror. I think it was the sheer cumulative weight of everything that has happened over the past few days and since the Green Party motion.
There is still time for Mark to break away and take a proper stance and not let the Greens use him as a token Jew to plaster over what the party has done:
The Greens have enshrined antisemitism as party policy in the most disturbing act of institutional antisemitism I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Anyone who remains in the Green Party is complicit.
This didn’t happen so much that things that previously happened just unhappened because of it. But what should we expect from someone who equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism? Clearly no dishonest tactic is too low when defending ethnic supremacy, apartheid, and genocide.
I’m not in the Greens nowadays and personally think while the motion was debated in good faith (proposed by a Palestinian, seconded by a Jewish holocaust survivor) it is likely to be counterproductive.
I agree there are various definitions of Zionism and the argument just gets bogged down in an academic argument in what is Zionism.
I think rather than political arguments there needs to be a philosophical argument about the dangers of religious beliefs. Where middle class people think they have benign beliefs but those beliefs are no longer benign because they have been brought into reality into the world.
I would argue Zionism in all its forms does needs to be discussed.
I’ll give an example (people should check out the reality of this themselves, I’m not making it up). About 30 million people in the United States consider themselves Christian Zionists. So the majority of self-declared Zionists are Christians not Jews.
Polling shows 33% of USA Americans believe the establishment of Israel is a prelude to the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Politically they tend to support a Greater Israel and Israeli wars due to this. Once the Rapture comes, relying on an interpretation of the biblical book of Zechariah (13:8-9), predicts a severe “purging” of the Jewish population.
So from a philosophical (or even theological) viewpoint, should we bury our head in the sand and say religious belief is benign? We shouldn’t discuss Zionism because it is upsetting?
Or should we discuss some forms of Zionism that is “worrying” but not other forms of Zionism?
Or should we recognise that when religious belief is combined with political power that can actively promote war and mass murder, religious belief is dangerous, even when it is middle class white people believing it?
I personally belief in internationalism and humanitarianism. That means from my point of view, international law must take precedence over any religious belief. That all citizens of the world must have the same equal rights. This of course is broadly what left and centre left people should believe (surely?). I think people who consider themselves left or left of centre but believe in forms of exceptionalism that deny others human rights (that you would want for yourself) should do more to challenge their own contradictions.
So this is where the human right to return from displacement is an issue. Should a peoples religious beliefs based on fable and historical inaccuracy deprive another people from their basic human rights?
Can people square if they believe in defending rights for women and LGBTQIA rights from religious dogma but then deny Palestinians their right of return based on religious dogma? This is only an issue for people who consider themselves left and centre left.
Right wingers are far more consistent in believing in inequality. I’ve found on social media the far right see Israel as a beacon of hope. This is why Tommy Robinson is so supportive of Israel and Israel love Tommy Robinson. They see Israel as a blueprint for a Christian Anglo-Saxon Britain, where non Christian Anglo-Saxons would have less rights, maybe even expulsion.
Palestiniasm is Racism.
The motion was a clear case of entryism, something that has plagued leftwing parties for decades. The huge rise in membership (from 105,000 to 230,000) under Polanski has seen a huge influx of far-left members who forced this motion. Those voting in favour represent 0.4 percent of the total membership, with a vote being taken when most long term, committed, activists were campaigning for Polanski in the St Pancras and Holburn byelection
The Greens have allowed a once principled party to descend into anti semitism, something I never thought I would see. Their leader has never once mentioned the impending climate catastrophe and was too cowardly to even vote on the motion.
What a terrible disappointment for the brilliant and hardworking Caroline Lucas and other dedicated, long term members to see what Polanski has brought the party to.
Opposing racism is principled. And the new leadership and new membership are the only reason the party is enjoying any popularity right now. I love the taste of centrist tears in the morning though. Cry more.
I’m glad Mark has clarified his position. It’s a brave thing to do having only just been elected as a Green councillor. We’d now like to hear from his Queen’s Psrk Green councillor colleague Marina Lademacher who was bragging on social media that she supported this vile anti-Semitic motion.
This isn’t true Steve, Marina voted against the motion and encouraged others to oppose it to (source: I was there)
If you can give an example why Zionism is not racist given what we have all seen very day then I will accept that this was was a vile anti-Semitic motion. To warn you it’s got to be good though we have seen families with all that’s left of them in bags that say other wise, just for starters. Then there the 20K kids dead, Plus my energy bills are though the roof just to satisfy the itch of the leader of the only democratic in the Middle East. Off you go why
Palestiniasm is Racism.
Opposing Zionism isn’t anti-Semitic. Very many Jewish people oppose it and very many non-Jewish people support Zionism. However, even the deeply flawed IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism that everyone was bullied into adopting lest they be accused of being antisemitic (the favourite tool in the Zionist arsenal) rightly points out that equating Jewishness and Zionism is antisemitic, so your comment is the actual antisemitism here.
Has anybody actually read the motion? It is not anti-semitic in any way. It is about the political ideology, Zionism. As has been pointed out above, not all Zionists are Jews. Also not all Jews are Zionists. So how can anti Zionism be interpreted as anti-semitic?
I was one of the entryist that supported the motion. I entered in the early 1980s when we were still the Ecology Party!
Lloyd Russell-Moyle. What is your opinion of the position taken by your new bedfellows. You had an opinion when in Labour. It’s on the record. Yet now you stay silent and hide behind comments by others, such as Mark.
Do you still believe in the two state solution when your party does not.
Silence gives consent. People need to know.
Firstly, he has given an opinion, which is how I found this article. Secondly, he’s not an MP now, so why are you demanding he gives opinions on anything?
This is idiotic. Firstly, being a Zionist isn’t a core part of being Jewish and there’s nothing at all about the motion that prevents him or anyone else from attending subspecies synagogue or community events. Where has he pulled that from? Secondly, I’m sick of hearing how it is “divisive” to call out racism. No, the racism is divisive in the first place and, frankly, this is a line I usually hear from the far right whenever we call out racism, homophobia, and transphobia. But those things are a core part of many Christians’ identity, so I guess they’re OK. They sure seem to get scared wheen they’re challenged, so I guess irrational fear is a good reason to stick up for bigotry now. Honestly, where did they find this guy? What an utterly absurd pile of illogical nonsense. Any belief that puts one ethnicity above others is racist, especially when it involves building that ethnostate on ethnically cleansed land.
Palestiniasm is Racism.
When someone tries to say what is or is not “a core part of being Jewish”, it’s essential to ask them if they are speaking as a member of the Jewish community. Many folk of other faiths and none seem willing to lecture Jews on the tenets of their Judaism. Any decent person needs to ask if this would be acceptable in the case of any other religion and it is very clear that the answer should be in the negative.
The Greens have been taken over by entryists and Polanski was too much of a coward to even stay and vote on the motion. The party will pay the price with the voters
Saddened to see Mark Strong, the newly elected Green councillor, casually slipping in a reference to a supposed “genocide in Gaza” even as he tries to distance himself from the notorious “Zionism is racism” motion, which the Green Party has now passed into its official policy.
Perhaps Councillor Strong felt he couldn’t refuse to repeat the “genocide” slur and remain in the Greens. Or maybe he felt he had to buy into that lie to appease the antisemites in his party. All the same, however much the Greens and their fellow travellers may attempt to make the “G Word” an accepted part of normal discussion of the Mid-East conflict, the fact remains that “genocide” remains simply an accusation, not the finding of any competent court. Also, as even the most basic research will reveal, the accusation itself is widely regarded as politically motivated and one made by highly partisan actors.
I am sure many people voted for Mark Strong because of his work as a community activist and in the hope that he would continue to focus on questions of local infrastructure and Green (i.e. environmental issues). Few, if any, will have voted to give him a platform to promote an unfounded accusation, one seen by many as a scurrilous libel, against a foreign state. Perhaps voters should take this as a lesson: whichever Green candidate you vote for, they will come with a set of party lines from which they may not advertise in their electoral materials. That is to say, even if you elect someone because of their work on recycling, they will use their new position as a platform to promote a set of views which have little or no connection with the role they were elected to. Fortunately, local residents will soon have the opportunity to challenge Councillor Strong regarding his views before the next set of local elections.
Let’s hope that next time he is properly confronted regarding his misuse of the term “genocide”. Journalists have a key role in this to ensure that no candidate is able to slip through controversial views by simply failing to mention them. It is also vital that journalists push back if their interviewees present their own views as fact, as in the case of this “genocide” accusation. This may be challenging in the face of the organised and persistent campaign to make the “G” word an accepted term. However, a core principle of journalism is make it clear to the reader what is fact and what is not. And, to be very clear, Mark Strong’s choice of vocabulary very much comes under the heading of an assertion without any factual basis.