Zack Polanski’s Stance on the ‘Zionism is Racism’ Motion Centers Jewish Comfort Over Palestinian Liberation

On 14 September, Polanski spoke at the Zeteo UK launch event, where he was interviewed by Mehdi Hasan and Shehab Khan. In a video surfaced by the Crispin Flintoff Show, titled “Polanski opposes ‘divisive’ Zionism is Racism motion,” the Green Party leader expressed his views regarding Motion A105, tabled by Lubna Speitan.

While Polanski acknowledged that the actions of the current Israeli government are racist and genocidal, he stated he would only support the motion if two specific amendments were made: one to explicitly “safeguard Jewish people” within the party, and another to remove the call for a single democratic Palestinian state.

“Safeguarding Jewish People”

Polanski argues that the motion must include an explicit section “safeguarding Jewish people”; meaning a Jewish person who stands against the occupation and genocide but belongs to a “Zionist synagogue” should not be treated differently within the Green Party. He highlighted that without this clause, barriers would be created for Jewish members joining the party.

Speitan’s definition highlights Zionism as “the ideological underpinning of an ethnonationalist Jewish State in historic Palestine, to the exclusion and domination of the non-Jewish population.” History and the present day validate Speitan’s definition as the correct one. By the very creation of the State of Israel, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 pledged British support for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” with the legal lines protecting Palestinian communities rendered vague. Zionist representatives at the time actively sought to strip these protections completely. History confirms Zionism as an ideology of domination.

Although Polanski identifies as a “Jewish non-Zionist,” his need to soften the definition for the sake of a Jewish person attending a Zionist synagogue centers Zionist comfort. This presents a logical contradiction: he seeks to declare Zionism racism while insisting that those who belong to institutions built on its foundations should be treated as equals in the party.

If you accept fascism as evil but don’t question why a member of your community frequents neo-Nazi spaces, there is a problem in that thinking...

A Single Democratic Palestinian State is “Quite Imperial”

His second objection was the motion's call for a single democratic Palestinian state in historic Palestine, describing the language as “quite imperial” for the leader of the Green Party to dictate such a settlement. He asserted his role as demanding justice for Palestinians and Israelis, leaving the specifics to the people themselves.

It is agreeable that Polanski is a firm believer in the right of people to exist, rather than countries. In May 2026, he rebutted the argument of Israel’s right to exist as “semantics” that lead to gatekeeping. He connected this specifically to the Balfour Declaration, highlighting that it was external powers deciding national borders that created the occupation of Palestine.

However, his principle collapses when applied consistently. If the goal is self-determination free from occupation, why does Polanski hesitate to endorse the dissolution of the Zionist framework of Israel? Critics like Huda Ammori argue that this hesitation is a form of liberal Zionism. It represents a half-commitment to the abolition of apartheid while avoiding the outright endorsement of a Jewish state.

Conclusion

Polanski’s stance may seem neutral, but it is actually tainted by contradiction in an attempt at management. He seeks to manage the comfort of the Jewish community whilst dampening the pro-Palestine movement. Given his evident commitment to anti-racism, this is clearly a personal endeavor for him—one he must face in order to gain the full trust of the pro-Palestinian community. There are direct implications that come with claiming an “anti-Zionist” identity, and until they are addressed, the narrative of the Green Party will remain fractured.