The motion passed by 1,022 votes to 813, according to BBC reporting. It also backed a single democratic Palestinian state across the territory it called historic Palestine, departing from an arrangement in which Israel and a Palestinian state would exist alongside each other.
What the Vote Changed
Member approval made the resolution party policy. That does not automatically establish that every part of it will appear in the Greens’ next general election manifesto, and no implementation timetable was identified in the reviewed material.
The distinction matters because a conference decision, parliamentary activity and an election platform are different stages. The vote establishes the party’s adopted position, but not every practical consequence that opponents or supporters predict will follow.
The party’s own announcement described Zionism as an ethnonationalist political project and argued that opposition to it should not be equated with antisemitism. That is the party’s definition and defense of its policy, rather than a neutral resolution of the controversy.
Israel and Jewish Representatives Respond
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported condemnation from Israel’s Foreign Ministry after the vote. The response placed Israel’s opposition to the policy alongside the concerns voiced by Jewish representatives in Britain.
Jewish critics warned that treating Zionism as inherently racist could stigmatize people for supporting Jewish national self determination. Their concerns included the implications for Jewish members and for institutions with a connection to Israel.
Party representatives rejected the suggestion that the motion made the Greens hostile to Jewish people. They maintained that their commitment to Jewish and Palestinian rights remained intact, leaving a substantive disagreement over the policy’s meaning and likely effects.
Senior Figures Were Divided
Former party co leaders Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer opposed the motion, according to the reporting. Party leader Zack Polanski did not participate in the vote while campaigning in north London.
His absence should not be described as a vote in favor or a formal abstention without further evidence. The material reviewed supports the narrower statement that he did not take part in the conference decision.
The Jerusalem Post also reported the defeat of an amendment concerning members who attend synagogues that identify as Zionist. That account helps explain the institutional concerns raised by critics, but does not establish that any member has already been disciplined under the new policy.
The Practical Consequences Remain Open
Zionism is commonly understood as a movement for Jewish national self determination and a Jewish homeland or state. The conference motion applied a different political characterization, placing that disagreement at the center of the dispute.
The policy’s support for one Palestinian state also raises a concrete question about the future of Israel as a separate Jewish state. How the party would protect Jewish collective rights under its preferred arrangement was not settled by the vote count.
The next developments will concern implementation, parliamentary use and any manifesto commitments. The reviewed material did not establish completed disciplinary action, a legal change or a binding decision by the British government.
