Caroline Lucas, the Green Party's first MP and its former leader, has publicly broken with a conference motion that would formally define Zionism as a form of racism. The proposal is due to be debated and voted on at the party's annual conference in Brighton this weekend, and has already split senior figures within the organisation ahead of the vote.
What the motion proposes
The text put forward by party members states that Zionism would be "treated as any other form of racism" and that the policy would be implemented by the party's anti-racism working group "as appropriate and in accordance with its ordinary practice." If passed, this would become binding Green Party policy rather than a one-off statement, meaning it could shape how the party handles internal disputes, member conduct and external messaging going forward.
Zionism itself is not a single, fixed ideology. It broadly refers to the movement that supported the creation of a Jewish state in the historical land of Israel, and by extension today describes a range of views about the legitimacy and nature of the modern Israeli state. Supporters and critics alike acknowledge the term covers a wide spectrum of political positions, from hardline nationalist currents to more liberal strands that back a two-state solution. That breadth is precisely what critics of the motion say makes a blanket definition problematic.
Where senior Greens disagree
Lucas, who led the party from 2008 to 2014 and co-led it from 2016 to 2018, told BBC Radio 4 she has "serious concerns" about the wording. She argued there is "no single definition of Zionism" and warned that, regardless of the motion's intent, it risks being read as a signal that Jewish people are not welcome in the party. She confirmed she will vote against it and plans to speak during the conference debate.
Adrian Ramsay, another former co-leader and now MP for Waveney Valley, echoed that position, telling The Times the motion was "not helpful" and could be seen as undermining the party's existing stance of backing statehood rights for both Israelis and Palestinians - a position he said was set out clearly in the 2024 manifesto on which he was elected.
Current leader Zack Polanski has taken a more cautious line. He told Zeteo UK there is "something impractical" about a party attempting to legislate what Zionism means, and said he wants two amendments attached before he would consider supporting it - chiefly, protection for Jewish members who belong to synagogues that describe themselves as Zionist. He was explicit that the policy "should definitely not be about finding Jewish people and creating a barrier" to membership, while also warning that without amendment the motion risks becoming "a distraction" that opens both the party and pro-Palestinian campaigners to attack.
Why the internal split matters
Disputes of this kind are not simply a question of wording. For any political party, a conference motion that attempts to classify a contested political identity as inherently racist carries legal, reputational and organisational consequences - it can affect how complaints are handled, how members are disciplined, and how the party is perceived by voters, donors and media. The Greens have positioned themselves as a party of inclusion and anti-racism campaigning; a motion seen as targeting a specific community's political or religious identity sits awkwardly against that self-image, which is precisely the tension Lucas and Ramsay are pointing to.
The outcome of the Brighton vote will be watched closely, not only by Green Party members but by other political organisations grappling with how to discuss Israel, Palestine and antisemitism without conflating criticism of a state with prejudice against a religious or ethnic group. How the party resolves this balance - and whether amendments proposed by Polanski are adopted - will likely shape its public positioning well beyond this single conference weekend.