Ramsay says Green Party at ‘crossroads’ over Zionism motion

Former Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay says the party is at a “real crossroads” after members adopted a motion on Zionism, and has urged its leadership to refocus on the party’s core values and address the motion sooner than the usual two-year policy-review cycle.

Ramsay, now an MP for Waveney Valley, told the BBC that the party risked becoming more internally focused and divisive. He argued that Greens should build consensus, engage members and focus on issues including the environment and the cost of living. He also said the party needed policies capable of winning support from a majority of British voters.

The motion was adopted at the party’s 2026 conference by 1,022 votes to 813. It defines Zionism as an ethnonationalist political project and supports a single democratic state throughout historic Palestine. The party says the motion also reaffirms its support for Palestinian rights and for opposing antisemitism and racism.

Ramsay said he did not regard Zionism as racist and believed Israel had a right to exist. He described the situation in Gaza as appalling, but said the motion conflicted with the party’s 2024 manifesto and should be changed or rescinded sooner than party rules currently allow. He suggested action could be taken before the party’s spring conference next year.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski responded that there was “no environmental justice without social, racial and economic justice”. He has previously said he wants the motion amended in future, while arguing that its central criticism of the ideology behind Palestinian displacement was “obvious”. Polanski did not take part in the conference vote.

The dispute has drawn criticism from senior Greens and Jewish groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has asked the party for more information about the motion, while Labour has said it will end local council power-sharing agreements with the Greens unless their councillors disown the policy.

Ramsay said he was not calling for Polanski to resign and had no intention of leaving the party. He also called for changes to the party’s internal decision-making, arguing that a small conference turnout should not determine policy for the wider membership.

The argument echoes an earlier dispute over whether Polanski would overturn the motion: he said it would remain party policy until 2028, when he hoped to amend it.