Last year, the UN general assembly endorsed the New York Declaration supporting two states in the Holy Land by 142 votes to 10. Those voting against included the US and Israel. The wider international diplomatic consensus rests on a 2002 UN security council resolution, which explicitly affirmed a two-state vision for Israel and Palestine. Saudi Arabia’s then crown prince said peace required “two equal parties” and could not survive “oppression and humiliation”. His words remain as relevant now as then.
The Green party has now rejected that two-state framework in favour of a one-state solution. The Guardian strongly disagrees with this move. Peace needs to acknowledge reality: the latest polls in Gaza and the West Bank suggest that a majority support a two-state formula based on the 1967 borders compared with just 10% who back a single democratic state with equal rights. The European Greens also disagree with the new direction of their English and Welsh sister party. The EU-wide representatives argue that the policy is incompatible with previously agreed positions. Europe’s Greens – which include the centrist German party – condemn “the genocide against Palestinians” and call for sanctions against Israel’s government.
Political scientists say that currently, west of the Jordan River, one system under Israeli control enforces unequal laws and relegates Palestinians to a “lower caste”. The international consensus has plainly failed to deliver Palestinian statehood, or indeed prevent the near-total destruction of Gaza by Israel. But a “single democratic” entity in Palestine seems even more remote. There may need to be fresh future thinking about peace, including confederation models being considered as the crisis deepens in the occupied Palestinian territories. The ultimate test of any solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is whether it ends domination by any one group and provides equal rights so both peoples have a secure political future.
The vote at the Green party conference to adopt a controversial set of policies was decided by about 200 votes – less than one-thousandth of the membership. The Greens’ leader, Zack Polanski, who is himself Jewish, has become embroiled in a row over antisemitism around the fourth anniversary of the 7 October attacks, at a time when he is fighting a parliamentary byelection in London. The motion defines Zionism as being “to the exclusion and/or domination of the non-Jewish population” in historic Palestine. Most in the Jewish community disagree, seeing it solely in terms of Jewish self-determination. The anger is real and understandable. There could be real-world consequences. The policy declares that an ideology that most Jewish people identify with is racist and raises the question of whether someone who identifies as a Zionist can remain in the Greens.
Green delegates rejected safeguards against disciplining members for affiliation with Jewish institutions identifying as Zionist. Lawyers warn that Zionist beliefs may qualify for protection under equality legislation. On Monday, Mr Polanski ruled out “exclusion, or refusal to engage with anyone” in the Greens because of religious or communal affiliation. The test is whether the party honours this in practice. Whatever the motion’s eventual impact, it is clear that Green party structures urgently need to be reformed for a mass membership base. Mr Polanski, a London assembly member, wants to join the five Green MPs in parliament. He will need to show a surer political touch to get there.
