The Jewish Chronicle, on UK Politics, 25 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Board of Deputies votes to declare Greens a ‘racist party’

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

The Board of Deputies has overwhelmingly voted to condemn the Green Party of England and Wales as a “racist party” following its declaration that Zionism was racism at its conference earlier this month. At an online meeting, by a majority of 118 to one, members of the representative body said that the party “has, by adopting an antisemitic platform, become a racist party, and that the Board shall treat it as it has treated other racist parties”.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The Green Party's response. A Green spokesman said the party does not discriminate against people who hold Zionist views and rejected the Board's characterisation of the motion and the party. Without it, a reader believes the Greens did not contest the charge of racism made against them.

How we know

Laura Marks, who chaired Sunday's debate on the Green Party[Missing Credit] President Phil Rosenberg urged members to support the resolution, which was proposed by Ashley Hirst, a deputy for Hendon’s Ner Israel Synagogue, and Max Royston, a representative for St John’s Wood (United) Synagogue. In his opening, Hirst linked Zionism to more than two millennia of Jewish history and religious tradition. “In every age we have spoken of our bond with Zion in the language of the day,” he said.

Modern Zionism was “ a people returning to its homeland after 2,000 years of praying”, he went on. "Zionism, ancient and modern, was part of Jewish identity and who we are and our tribe was bound to Zion long before the Green Party had heard of it.” The Green Party, he felt, had “crossed a Rubicon. "The time for asking nicely has passed. The time for us as British Jews to stand up for ourselves with pride is now.”

South Hampstead deputy Denise Lester, condemning the Green’s policy, said: “” The Board resolution noted that the organisation had previously named political parties as racist, citing the campaign against the National Front in the 1970s. It described the Greens’ call for a “single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine” as meaning “the erasure of the State of Israel in its entirety”.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

What the Green motion actually said. It described an apartheid regime between the river and the sea and affirmed the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. The Chronicle describes the motion only through the Board's words, so a reader takes it as a statement about Jewish identity alone.

How we know

It called on other parties to repudiate political alliances with the Greens “unless in the case of local government the Green Party local leadership have given assurances of their rejection of the antisemitic platform and their support for overturning it”. The Board would “deem any political party which breaks that firewall in any way to be enabling racism,” it said. The Board would “engage with and support any Green Party representative who publicly repudiates the policy and commits to campaign for its reversal,” it stated.

It added that it would stand “with the Jewish members of the Green Party and with their allies who have opposed this policy”. It also called on the Greens “to rescind the policy and until it does, to confirm in writing that no member will be subject to its anti-racism procedures because of their Jewish identity or affiliation to a Jewish community institution”. Former Board senior vice-president Laura Marks, who chaired the plenary session, described the vote as “a landmark moment” for the organisation.

Read the original article on thejc.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

The Jewish Chronicle reports the Board of Deputies' vote to call the Green Party a racist party almost entirely in the words of the motion's backers. It never gives the Green Party's response, which the BBC, LBC and GB News all carried, so a reader comes away thinking the charge went unanswered. It also never says what the Green motion actually stated, beyond the Board's own description of it.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The Green Party's response. A Green spokesman said the party does not discriminate against people who hold Zionist views and rejected the Board's characterisation of the motion and the party. Without it, a reader believes the Greens did not contest the charge of racism made against them.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  2. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “A major UK party has written into its platform that a core part of Jewish identity is racist.”

    Why this matters
    The Chronicle gives the motion's proposer the space to say the Greens have called Jewish identity itself racist, and sets nothing beside it.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the Green Party has said that being Jewish is racist, and that the party has offered no account of its own position.
    The context
    The Green Party said it does not discriminate against people who hold Zionist views and rejected the Board's characterisation of its motion. Other outlets reported this the same day. The Chronicle carries no Green voice at all.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “We should call this out for what it is, antisemitism pure and simple.”

    Why this matters
    The Chronicle adds a second deputy's charge of antisemitism against a named party, again with no reply from that party.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the charge of antisemitism is uncontested, because every voice in the piece makes it and none answers it.
    The context
    The Greens said the Board's characterisation of the motion and the party was wrong and that they would keep speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. This was reported by LBC and GB News.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    What the Green motion actually said. It described an apartheid regime between the river and the sea and affirmed the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. The Chronicle describes the motion only through the Board's words, so a reader takes it as a statement about Jewish identity alone.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jewish Chronicle

Everything we scored from The Jewish Chronicle