Ynet News (English), on UK Politics, 7 October 2026

8.2out of 10Serious

Historical records cast doubt on Zack Polanski’s family Nazi escape story

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

Zack Polanski, leader of Britain’s Green Party, is at the center of a public controversy after historical records contradicted his account of his ancestors fleeing the Nazis. The party has made headlines in recent days after passing a motion declaring Zionism to be racism and . In his keynote speech at the party conference in Bournemouth last year, Polanski, 43, said his Jewish ancestors fled pogroms in Latvia and Ukraine, made their way to Nazi-occupied Poland and ultimately escaped to England, where they encountered antisemitism.

However, a review of public birth, marriage and census records from 1891 and 1901 found that his family had settled in Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the records, Polanski repeated the story of his family fleeing the Nazis on several occasions, including on “The Rest Is Politics” podcast and the BBC’s “Question Time” in December. The Daily Mail reported that the mystery deepened last month when Polanski himself acknowledged, during a podcast interview with Iain Dale, that his great-grandparents had arrived in Britain “way before the Second World War.”

In the same interview, he said they changed their surname from Polanski to Paulden to escape antisemitism in Britain, not the Nazis. Polanski, who was born David Paulden in 1982, changed his name to Zack Polanski to reconnect with his Jewish heritage and distance himself from his stepfather. The Green Party declined to explain the discrepancy to the Daily Mail. A party spokesperson said that “Jewish family history is often confusing and muddled, as Zack has acknowledged” adding that “it’s astonishing that the only current Jewish leader of a British political party is having his family history raked over by the press in an attempt to discredit him.”

The controversy comes as the Green Party opens its 2026 conference in Brighton and less than a week before Polanski is due to contest a parliamentary election in Holborn and St Pancras in north London, a seat held by Labour since 1983 and previously represented by Keir Starmer, who stepped down as prime minister. This is not the first time Polanski, who serves as a member of the London Assembly and earns nearly £66,500 ($88,000) a year, has faced scrutiny over contradictory statements.

Earlier this year, he apologized for an “unintentional mistake” after failing to pay council tax on a residential property because of “financial hardship.” In May, he admitted that he had not voted in local elections because he was not registered to vote, despite publicly promising his party’s candidate that he would vote for him. His spokesperson had claimed he had done so by postal ballot. The party attributed the incidents to a “misunderstanding.”

The Green Party on Sunday approved a controversial motion declaring Zionism a form of racism. In response, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar decided to bar Polanski from entering Israel. The approved motion calls for the establishment of “”

Left out here: Drops what it reported before

The article reports that Israel barred Polanski in response to the motion, and lays the motion at his door. It never says that Polanski found the motion too far-reaching and abstained, or that he wanted the single-state clause changed. Ynet itself reported both. Without this a reader believes Polanski championed the motion Israel is punishing him for.

How we know

It also calls for a sweeping boycott of Israel and broad sanctions similar to those imposed on South Africa’s apartheid regime, arguing that “Zionism has created, and seeks to maintain and, where possible, expand, a system of apartheid between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.” On Tuesday, Britain’s Telegraph reported that party member Lubna Speitan, who spearheaded the motion, is a close friend of an al-Qaeda terrorist who plotted a suicide attack at Heathrow Airport that was intended to kill hundreds of people, with a particular focus on passengers arriving from Israel or the United States.

According to the report, Speitan had previously offered to testify in defense of the terrorist, Minh Quang Pham, who was convicted in the United States of membership in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, and of plotting the attack. Court documents from 2015 described her as a “close friend” of his. Speitan has previously said Hamas should not be designated a terrorist organization. She has also called for Zionism to be “dismantled from the world” and said the time would come when Zionists would be “hunted down as the Nazi oppressors were hunted down.”

When initially asked about her relationship with the terrorist, Speitan called the question “insulting” and said it had “no relation to the work that I’m doing.” She accused the “mainstream media” of seeking to “demonise” Palestinians and suggested that Pham had been wrongfully accused. Asked about his 44-year prison sentence, she said: “People are demonised for all sorts of things and wrongfully accused of all sorts of things.”

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

Ynet ties the whole Green Party to an al-Qaeda convict through one member's friendship, once in its second sentence and again in a subheading. In its own voice it states the motion's critics' reading, that it implies Israel's elimination, as fact, and it cuts the motion's single-state clause before the words that promise equal rights for all. It also never tells the reader that Polanski opposed that clause and abstained, while it reports Israel barring him in response to the motion.

  1. Guilt by association

    Serious

    “Anti-Zionism and ties to terrorists”

    Why this matters
    Ynet's subheading puts the party's anti-Zionism policy and "ties to terrorists" side by side as one theme, in the outlet's own voice and in the plural.
    The impression it gives
    Anti-Zionism and the Green Party's motion are bound up with links to terrorists.
    The context
    The only tie the article reports is one member's friendship with one convicted man, sourced to the Telegraph and 2015 court papers. The motion's own text, as the article quotes it, calls for a democratic state and sanctions.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Green Party's Zionism motion and the member who proposed it.

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “The wording of the motion implies a call for the effective elimination of the State of Israel.”

    Why this matters
    Ynet states in its own voice, with no attribution, that the motion implies Israel's elimination.
    The impression it gives
    It is established that the motion calls for wiping out the State of Israel.
    The context
    This is the motion's critics' reading. Ynet's own report three days earlier attributed it to critics. The motion calls for one democratic state with equal rights for all.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Critics say the motion's single-state clause would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The motion calls for one democratic state with equal rights for all.

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    “a single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.”

    Why this matters
    Ynet ends its quotation of the single-state clause at "its capital", right after telling the reader the motion implies Israel's elimination.
    The impression it gives
    The motion calls for a Palestinian state with no guarantee for anyone else living there.
    The context
    The clause goes on to say "equal rights for all, and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants". The article never prints those words.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The approved motion calls for "a single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, equal rights for all, and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants."

  4. Guilt by association

    Minor

    “following revelations that one of its members is a close friend of an al-Qaeda terrorist”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice Ynet makes a party member's friendship with an al-Qaeda convict one of the two reasons the Green Party itself is in the news, next to the Zionism vote.
    The impression it gives
    The Green Party as a body has a link to al-Qaeda terrorism.
    The context
    The article's own later reporting rests on one member, Lubna Speitan, and court papers from 2015 that call her a friend of Pham. Nothing in the article connects the party, its leader or the motion's content to him.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Court documents from 2015 described her as a “close friend” of his.”
    • Elsewhere in the article“Britain’s Telegraph reported that party member Lubna Speitan”

    Show it in the article

  5. Drops what it reported before

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article reports that Israel barred Polanski in response to the motion, and lays the motion at his door. It never says that Polanski found the motion too far-reaching and abstained, or that he wanted the single-state clause changed. Ynet itself reported both. Without this a reader believes Polanski championed the motion Israel is punishing him for.

    How we know

    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 Ynet News (English)

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)