Caroline Lucas, the Green Party's former leader and its first ever MP, has publicly opposed a conference motion that would declare Zionism a form of racism. The proposal is due to be debated and voted on at the party's annual conference in Brighton this weekend, and has already split senior figures within the organisation before a single vote has been cast.
What the motion actually proposes
The text under consideration states that Zionism would be "treated as any other form of racism", with implementation handed to the party's anti-racism policy working group. Zionism itself is not a single, fixed ideology. It broadly refers to the movement supporting a Jewish state in the historical land of Israel, and by extension, backing for the modern state of Israel. But the term is used and understood differently across Jewish communities, political movements and historical contexts, which is precisely why Lucas and others argue that codifying it as racism in party rulebook terms is fraught with difficulty.
Lucas told BBC Radio 4 she has "serious concerns" about the wording, arguing there is "no single definition of Zionism" and warning the motion risks being read as a signal that Jewish members are not welcome in the party. She said she would not be voting for it and expects to speak against it during the conference debate.
A leadership split without a leadership position
Notably, the motion was not brought forward by the Green Party's leadership, and senior figures are now navigating a public disagreement in real time. Former co-leader Adrian Ramsay, now MP for Waveney Valley, told The Times he too would vote against it, calling it "not helpful" and insisting it risked undermining the party's existing position supporting statehood rights for both Israelis and Palestinians, a stance he says was central to the 2024 manifesto on which he was elected.
Current leader Zack Polanski has taken a more cautious line. He told Zeteo UK there is "something impractical" about a political party attempting to legally define what Zionism is, and said he remains undecided. Polanski has floated amendments designed to protect Jewish members who belong to synagogues that describe themselves as Zionist, arguing that membership of such an institution should not create "a barrier or a bar" to participation in the party, provided a member opposes occupation and what he terms apartheid and genocide. Without those amendments, he said, the motion risks becoming "a distraction" that exposes both the party and pro-Palestinian campaigners to attack.
Why internal party definitions carry real-world weight
Motions passed at party conferences are not neutral housekeeping exercises. Once adopted, they become official policy, shaping how complaints are handled, how members are disciplined, and how the party positions itself publicly on one of the most contested issues in international politics. A working definition that equates a contested political ideology with racism has implications well beyond conference hall rhetoric, touching on how the party manages internal disputes, how it is perceived by Jewish constituents and donors, and how rival parties and media characterise it going forward.
The debate also reflects a broader pattern seen across UK political parties in recent years, where internal votes on Israel, Palestine and antisemitism have repeatedly tested the boundary between policy-making and identity politics. The outcome in Brighton will be watched closely, not just by Green Party members, but by anyone tracking how political organisations attempt, and often struggle, to legislate definitions for ideas that resist simple categorisation.