On October 4, 2026, the UK Green Party officially adopted a motion formally establishing it as an anti-Zionist party and calling for the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian State with equal rights for all. What are the motion's key statements? What truth is there to accusations of antisemitism and anti-Palestinianism? And what does the motion mean next for Palestinians and allies?
Key points
Named "Zionism is Racism", the motion points to Zionism as an ideology that calls for the existence of an "ethnonationalist Jewish State in historic Palestine to the exclusion and/or domination of the non-Jewish population", and a practice that has caused the "dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians". It also points to the fact that it was based on European settler-colonial systems of dominations and that it has created racial hierarchies between Jews. Accordingly, it labels Zionism as racist, and the Green Party as anti-Zionist.
The motion also calls for the establishment of a single democratic state in Palestine, including the right of return. Interestingly, it does not both-side the colonizers and the colonized by speaking of "Israel-Palestine" or of a binational state. Instead, it explicitly speaks of a single Palestinian state. This is in line with its assessment of Israel as a colonial endeavor and points to the need to dismantle all colonial relations of power in order to allow for true Palestinian self-determination—an obvious stance, indeed, but one that is often buried under the weight of Zionist cultural hegemony.
Does the establishment of one Palestinian state neglect the rights of Jews? Not at all. The motion explicitly states it is "not aimed at the religious or ethnic background of those who may identify as Zionists" and refuses to "equate Jewish identity with Zionist ideology or political practice". To clear any lingering doubts, the document calls for "equal rights for all".
Finally, the motion refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as "historic Palestine". However, those borders were carved by the British occupation. A number of regions that were carved out of them, such as the Golan Heights or today's Southern Lebanon, were historically part of Palestine. The political administration of our region was different from the European concept of states with hard borders altogether. A more accurate expression would be Mandatory Palestine, 1947 Palestine, or simply Palestine.
Is the motion anti-Jewish?
The accusation that the motion is "antisemitic" is based on the claim that Zionism is simply "the right of the Jewish people to self-determination". There are indeed several definitions of Zionism, this being one of them. However, the motion defines Zionism as "a political ideology which called for the creation – and, now it exists, the continuity – of an ethnonationalist Jewish State in historic Palestine to the exclusion and/or domination of the non-Jewish population". Any reflections on the motion should be based on the definition it adopts, not one it doesn't.
Furthermore, the motion's definition is indeed the one that the Zionist movement has adopted for more than a century. For example, the 1917 Balfour declaration does not mention Jewish self-determination, but speaks of "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"—a specific endeavor Jews worldwide were not consulted about and played no role in determining. The state of Israel also follows the same definition of Zionism. For example, although Green Party leader Zack Polanski is Jewish, the colony banned him from entering it, not following his renunciation of his Jewishness, but following his party's support of democracy in Palestine. Zionism and Israel are therefore not about Jewish self-determination but about colonizing Palestine.
Finally, Jews are part of dozens of societies and citizens of dozens of states around the world. Just like other religious, cultural or other identities, they may feel they form a people or nation with those who share their identity, but this does not grant them political rights. For example, Muslims also speak of belonging to one Ummah or nation. But this does not grant them the political right to enter holy Islamic lands such as Mecca without proper authorization by Saudi authorities. Politicizing Jewish identity —i.e. considering Jews have collective political rights on the basis of their being Jewish rather than as citizens of their states— is an identitarian premise that Zionism has weaponized, not a universal concept it is racist to challenge.
Does the motion trespass the Palestinian right to self-determination?
This accusation is based on the premise that it is Palestinians, not a political movement in the UK, that must decide the proper solution to the occupation of Palestine. Although it might sound reasonable or possibly even anti-colonial at first glance, it is fundamentally flawed. Standing against the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state in all of Palestine in the name of Palestinian self-determination is a laughable contradiction. Democracy is, by definition, rule of the people. Democratic states are precisely the tool that allows peoples to self-determine.
Some point to polls that show a number of Palestinian support the "two-state solution"—a euphemism for the occupation of 78% of Palestine, akin to calling rape a "two-body solution". However, this fails to consider at least four factors. First, the majority of such polls are funded by U.S., European or pro-Israeli corporations. Second, those polls target Palestinians in the West Bank, i.e. Palestinians who are benefiting from the existence of some kind of a Palestinian authority, even if to a very limited extent, and who would understandably rather not lose that. Third, those polls often fail to offer proper definitions, such as whether the "two-state" proposal would be a final model or an interim one, or if the "one state" would be a liberated Palestinian state or one that still includes elements of Zionism.
But fourthly and most importantly, such polls fail to consider that Palestinians live under constant threat. Would you expect a Palestinian to actually prefer the occupation of 78% of their land over its liberation? Is it not more reasonable to conclude that, with the exception of a tiny minority of collaborators, Palestinians who tolerate the existence of the colony are settling for crumbs under duress rather than expressing their actual preference?
Indeed, did the world poll France before liberating it from German occupation, Ukraine before sending it weapons to fight the Russian occupation, or South Africa before standing with it against apartheid? Polls under occupation are ridiculously meaningless. If, in a liberated Palestine, Palestinians decide —for some strange reason— to give away 78% of their land, it will have been their free will for others to respect. Until then, standing with Palestinian self-determination means precisely standing with the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state on all of Palestine—this is the only thing it can mean.
What next?
This is not the first motion of its kind. A number of movements such as Citizens in a State (Lebanon), the Democratic Popular Unity Party (Jordan), Democratic Socialist of America (USA), Diem25 (Europe) and others have expressed similar positions. This motion, however, has caused a louder stir. This should push a number of actors to move in this liberatory democratic direction.
First, Palestinians in Palestine and the diaspora must revive their historical vision for one democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens. This means formulating a single document that clarifies this program, as was the case with the Palestinian National Charter before Oslo. Where Palestinian political organizations do not shoulder this responsibility, individual Palestinians must.
Second, pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist organizations must go beyond standing against genocide or expressing vague positions that avoid challenging the colony's existence. Israel is an apartheid, occupation, genocidal settler state. The Israel you have seen over the past three years is the one we have been seeing over the past 78 years. It is the only Israel there is—a danger to Palestine, Al-Sham and the world. The time for non-solutions is over. We must push forward for the dismantling of the settler state and the establishment of its antithesis.
