Ynet News (English), on UK Politics, 26 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

UK Jewish leaders declare Green Party ‘racist’ over anti-Zionist policy

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the country's largest representative Jewish organization, has formally declared the Green Party of England and Wales a racist party following its decision to adopt a policy defining Zionism as racism. The resolution, approved Sunday by an overwhelming majority of 118 votes to one, states that the Greens have adopted an antisemitic platform and that the Board will now treat the party as it does other parties it considers racist.

The decision was taken at the Board's October plenary meeting in response to a controversial motion passed earlier this month at the Green Party's annual conference in Brighton. The Greens approved the motion on October 4, with approximately 56% of delegates supporting a policy declaring Zionism a form of racism and calling for the establishment of "a single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine," a territory that includes present-day Israel.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never says how the motion defined Zionism: as an ideology advocating an ethnonationalist Jewish state in historic Palestine to the exclusion or domination of the non-Jewish population. It gives only the Board's definition (S33) and the Board's claim that the motion labels Jewish identity racist. Without it, a reader believes the Greens called Jewish identity or attachment to Israel racist, not a political ideology they defined.

How we know

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

Ynet cuts its quote from the motion before the words "equal rights for all" and the right of return. It then glosses the state as a territory that includes present-day Israel. A reader can believe the motion called for a Palestinian state without equal rights for its Jewish citizens.

How we know

The vote has intensified controversy surrounding the left-wing party, which has grown from a relatively marginal political force into a significant player in British politics. Its position on Zionism has drawn criticism from Jewish organizations and political figures, including members of the Green Party itself. The Board's resolution reflects what it describes as profound concern within Britain's Jewish community over a policy that labels a central element of Jewish identity as racist.

The Board argues that defining this connection as racist carries consequences extending beyond political debate about Israel. It says such language can affect Jewish participation in public life and the way Jewish communal institutions are treated.

The organization's formal declaration is particularly significant because of its representative structure. The Board encompasses 201 constituencies drawn from synagogues and Jewish communal organizations across Britain. Its membership includes 309 deputies and 32 observers under the age of 35, with 91 deputies representing regional Jewish communities. The resolution was debated and approved through this structure, bringing together representatives from across the country. ‘The Green Party has become a racist party’ Board of Deputies President Phil Rosenberg said the vote represented an unmistakable decision by Jewish community representatives.

"Today, representatives of Jewish communities across Britain have delivered a clear verdict," Rosenberg said. "By adopting an antisemitic platform, the Green Party of England and Wales has become a racist party. We will treat it accordingly." Rosenberg argued that no political party had the right to characterize a central part of Jewish identity, rooted in thousands of years of history, religion and peoplehood, as racist. He said the Greens' policy applied that label to substantial sections of British Jewry, including synagogues and communal organizations, effectively giving political legitimacy to anti-Jewish prejudice.

The Board president called on the Green Party's leadership to take responsibility for the decision, reverse the policy and confront what he described as the antisemitism it had legitimized. He also expressed support for Green Party members who opposed the motion, particularly Jewish members whose objections and warnings, he said, had gone unheeded. Rosenberg argued that those members deserved to have their concerns heard and receive support, rather than being marginalized within the party.

Green Party rejects accusations The Green Party has rejected the Board's characterization of the party and its policy. A spokesperson said the Greens do not discriminate against people who identify as Zionists and maintained that . Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, has previously said he would not have supported the Zionism motion in its existing form and would have preferred an amended version.

He has nevertheless defended elements of the party's position concerning Palestinian rights. The controversy has exposed disagreements within the Greens over how to distinguish opposition to Israeli government policies from positions that Jewish organizations regard as discriminatory toward Jews. ‘Our community called racism by its name’ Ashley Hirst, who proposed the Board of Deputies resolution, framed the issue as a fundamental question of Jewish identity and historical continuity.

"I inherited 3,000 years of stories, language, memory and everyday traditions that connect me to Zion," Hirst said. He welcomed what he described as the unequivocal message from British Jews that a political party declaring that connection racist should itself be regarded as racist. Max Royston, who seconded the proposal, said the vote sent a clear message about the direction of the Green Party under its current leadership. "Zionism is the belief that Jews have the right to national self-determination in our homeland," Royston said.

"Denying that right to Jews alone is racism." He said the Board's overwhelming decision demonstrated the seriousness with which its members viewed the Green Party's position and concluded that the Jewish community had now publicly identified what it considered racism.

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

Ynet reports the Board of Deputies vote closely but tells the motion only through the Board's description of it. It never gives the motion's own definition of Zionism, prints the Board's view that the policy brands Jewish identity racist in its own voice, and paraphrases the Green Party's rebuttal so that its word genocide disappears.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The article never says how the motion defined Zionism: as an ideology advocating an ethnonationalist Jewish state in historic Palestine to the exclusion or domination of the non-Jewish population. It gives only the Board's definition (S33) and the Board's claim that the motion labels Jewish identity racist. Without it, a reader believes the Greens called Jewish identity or attachment to Israel racist, not a political ideology they defined.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  2. Rewrites a party's rebuttal in softer words

    Minor

    “the party would continue campaigning for Palestinian rights and against Israeli government policies in Gaza”

    Why this matters
    Ynet paraphrases the Green spokesperson's reply as campaigning "against Israeli government policies in Gaza".
    The impression it gives
    The Greens answered the Board by objecting in general terms to Israeli policies.
    The context
    The spokesperson said the party would keep "speaking out against the genocide in Gaza" and pushing for sanctions on Israel's leaders. Ynet takes out the word the party used. A UN Commission of Inquiry has found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “A decision reflecting deep concerns among British Jews”

    Why this matters
    Ynet's own subheading says the decision reflects "deep concerns among British Jews", with no attribution.
    The impression it gives
    It is established that British Jews as a whole share the Board's view of the motion.
    The context
    This is the Board's own description of its vote. The Board's statement said the decision "reflects the profound concern across the Jewish community". The article gives no other source for it.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “For many British Jews, the connection to Israel is expressed through religious observance, family relationships, language, culture and the belief that the Jewish people have the same right to national self-determination as any other people.”

    Why this matters
    Ynet prints the Board's statement almost word for word as its own sentence, without quotation marks or attribution.
    The impression it gives
    This is the reporter's neutral account, which sets up the Board's case that the motion targets Jewish identity.
    The context
    These are the Board's words from its statement. They are one party's framing of what the motion is about.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    Ynet cuts its quote from the motion before the words "equal rights for all" and the right of return. It then glosses the state as a territory that includes present-day Israel. A reader can believe the motion called for a Palestinian state without equal rights for its Jewish citizens.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Ynet News (English)

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)