The Jewish Chronicle, on UK Politics, 25 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

BBC accused of giving Green activist ‘free rein’ to ‘launch disgusting attack’ on Jewish guest

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

The BBC has been accused of giving a Green Party activist “free rein” to “launch a disgusting attack” on a Jewish talk show guest. Dr Ashok Kumar, who is also a professor of political economy at Birkbeck, University of London, appeared on Politics Live last week alongside Baroness Chakrabarti, Lord Hannan, and the New Statesman’s Rachel Cunliffe, who is Jewish. During the programme, the panellists engaged in a lively debate concerning the Greens’ contention that “Zionism is racism,” which became official party policy after a controversial motion to that effect was voted through at the Green conference earlier this month.

During the discussion, Cunliffe criticised the motion on the grounds that it denied Jews the right to advocate for their own self-determination, even if that did not mean “Israel under the current Israeli government,” and suggested that it did not carry democratic support, as less than one per cent of all Green members actually voted for it. In response, Kumar said that “this motion was about Palestinian liberation” and that “Zionism is an ideology that is 150 years old” and has “laid the groundwork for a genocide” while “the Jewish tradition is thousands of years old… so to connect the two itself is antisemitic”.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article carries Cunliffe's claim that the motion lacked democratic support because less than one per cent of members voted for it. It never gives the result: members voted 1,022 to 813, or 55.7 per cent. A reader is left with only the low-turnout framing of a vote that passed by a clear margin of those voting.

Cunliffe then attempted to respond, saying “I am a Jewish woman being called an antisemite by somebody who…,” but Kumar cut her off, saying: “You called Zack Polanski, who is the only Jewish leader [of a British political party] and you implied that he is antisemitic”. and said the day after Kumar’s appearance would amend it “at the first opportunity… away from saying 'one state' to saying that Israelis and Palestinians should decide that future for themselves,” though he did say he would not seek to overturn it.

Kumar also posted a clip of his appearance on the show on X, which he captioned: “Went on BBC Politics Live to discuss why Zionism is a racist ideology. “The anchor and all three panellists looked like they were about to cry at the end. Very weird behaviour. Join the Green Party.” Commenting on the exchange, Alex Hearn of Labour Against Antisemitism told the Mail on Sunday: “It is staggering that the BBC invited [Kumar] to come on air and then gave him free rein to launch a disgusting attack against a Jewish guest and tell her she was wrong about her identity and experiences of antisemitism.”

A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC features a range of voices from across the political spectrum to talk about topical issues – their policies are scrutinised and their views appropriately challenged.” Per the Mail on Sunday, Kumar subsequently said that his social media post was “a figure of speech describing not specifically Cunliffe, but all of the other participants appearing frustrated that they had run out of arguments against my points”.

Kumar, though, reposted the article, claiming he had sent a letter threatening a libel action against the paper. “Funny how the Mail on Sunday don’t quote my official response but only from my liable [sic] letter. “My official statement: Zionism will join apartheid and Jim Crow in the ugly dustbin of history, and no amount of crocodile tears will change that.”

Read the original article on thejc.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

The Jewish Chronicle reports a complaint that the BBC let Ashok Kumar attack Rachel Cunliffe on Politics Live. It attributes the charge to Labour Against Antisemitism and carries the BBC's reply and Kumar's own words. It sets Polanski's absence from the vote against Kumar's claim without saying Polanski had backed the motion's definition of Zionism, and it carries Cunliffe's low-turnout point without giving the 1,022 to 813 result.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    “Kumar also insisted that Polanski supported the motion, but the Green leader did not attend the vote”

    Why this matters
    The words "insisted" and "but the Green leader did not attend the vote" set the outlet's own voice against Kumar, as if his claim about Polanski were wrong.
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away believing Kumar misrepresented Polanski and that the Green leader did not support the motion.
    The context
    Polanski backed the motion's definition of Zionism. He told the BBC that the motion defines Zionism as the displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people, and that this is clearly racism. He wanted only its single-state clause changed. The article never mentions his support for the definition, and its own closing clause, that he would not seek to overturn the motion, is the only hint of it.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article carries Cunliffe's claim that the motion lacked democratic support because less than one per cent of members voted for it. It never gives the result: members voted 1,022 to 813, or 55.7 per cent. A reader is left with only the low-turnout framing of a vote that passed by a clear margin of those voting.

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Our analysisFifteen news reports on the Greens' Zionism vote gave the Israeli state 773 words and Palestinians 98. Thirteen quoted no Palestinian at all.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jewish Chronicle

Everything we scored from The Jewish Chronicle