Zack Polanski calls for Green party overhaul after divisive Zionism vote

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has called for sweeping changes to the party’s policymaking rules, arguing that leaders need greater control over strategy following a bruising conference vote on Zionism.

Writing in an article published after his defeat in the Holborn and St Pancras parliamentary by-election, Polanski acknowledged that the party’s rapid growth has exposed severe flaws in its traditional grassroots mechanisms. Under the current structure, motions passed by small gatherings at annual conferences dictate official policy for the entire organisation.

That system broke down into open public acrimony last weekend. A contentious motion declaring Zionism a form of racism and endorsing a single Palestinian state passed by 1,022 votes to 813. The measure drew immediate criticism from international allies, including the European Green Party, and provoked vocal dissent within Westminster. Four of the party’s five MPs opposed the text.

What happened at the conference

The 1,022 members who voted in favour of the motion represented roughly 0.4% of the party’s total membership. That disproportion has alarmed senior figures who fear fringe contingents hold undue leverage over party direction.

Ellie Chowns, the party’s Westminster leader, warned that the Greens must not leave themselves open to capture by extremists, arguing that the episode underlined the urgent need to modernise policymaking.

Polanski admitted that his own handling of the conference caused friction. Facing calls to resign from critics who felt he remained silent while campaigning in the London by-election, he acknowledged that colleagues felt let down.

"Our party democracy must now evolve to meet that – creating wider engagement for members, giving leaders more responsibility to set the party’s strategic direction, and making our processes as robust and accessible as possible," Polanski wrote.

Polanski's position on the motion

Polanski, who is Jewish and was raised in a Zionist household, offered a nuanced critique of the resolution. He wrote that while the substance reflected his view of Zionism as an ideology underpinning the displacement of Palestinians—a sentiment he noted is shared by Holocaust survivor Stephen Kapos, who backed the motion—the text went too far in prescribing ideological doctrine.

"At the same time, Zionism is not easily defined, and I know for many Jewish people it is bound up with identity, safety and belonging," Polanski wrote. "In my view it’s not the job of a political party to tell people what to believe – and a narrow focus on definitions is neither desirable nor strategic."

He also parted company with the motion’s demand for a single state, saying it was not up to British politicians, let alone the Green Party, to decide the future borders of Israelis and Palestinians.

What happens next for the Greens

The controversy exposes growing pains for a party adjusting to national visibility. Having entered parliament with five MPs, the party leadership is increasingly at odds with an activist base that treasures direct democracy.

Senior figures have previously suggested shifting the party to a model where the broader membership votes on general political priorities, leaving detailed manifestos and tactical stances to elected representatives and executive committees. Whether the rank-and-file will agree to surrender policymaking power to party headquarters remains the central question facing Polanski's leadership.