As ever, Jonathan Freedland is on the money in his article (The Green party’s anti-Zionism motion is yet another attempt to tell Jews how we should think, 3 October). As a non-religious Jew-ish Londoner, I am appalled at the passing of the motion to declare Zionism as a form of racism, and I am seriously considering leaving the Green party as a result.
While I condemn the Israeli government’s actions against the Palestinian people, and I am not a Zionist myself, Zionism as defined by the motion is only one political interpretation and completely ignores ancient religious and cultural definitions held by many Jews who also condemn the current Israeli government.
I have worked with Palestinians and Israelis on the West Bank and in Jerusalem in the cause of peace and reconciliation, and firmly believe in equal rights for everyone in Israel and the occupied territories. That cause will be set back by this decision, which will give fuel to antisemites who hide their racism under an anti-Zionist guise.
This decision is a shot in the foot for the Green party, risking the alienation of British Jews and others who, like me, support peace and reconciliation, believe in equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, and strongly oppose the actions of the current Israeli government.
Simon Lawson
London
Jonathan Freedland is right that Zionism means different things to different people, and that Jewish historical attachment to Israel cannot simply be dismissed. But that complexity can also become a way of avoiding the more important question: what has Zionism produced in practice?
“Fire is destructive” does not mean every use of fire is destructive. It means fire has destructive potential, which is why we recognise boundaries around its use. The same applies to Zionism. Jewish self-determination is not inherently racist; but when a political project pursued in its name produces permanent occupation, settlement, displacement, unequal rights and Palestinian subordination, it is legitimate to ask whether the project has crossed those boundaries. Therefore, “Zionism is racist” can be a true description of the manifestation of Zionism embodied in the current Israeli state.
The issue, therefore, isn’t whether a benign definition of Zionism can be imagined. It plainly can. The issue is whether the political reality created in its name conforms to that definition. We should be able to examine Zionism as we examine any other political ideology: by its effects, its institutions, and the boundaries it recognises. Criticising a political ideology or the actions of a state is not the same thing as attacking Jews or Judaism.
Raymond O’Brien
London
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Green party success in the EU elections in 1989 saw a huge increase in membership and a wave of entryism. By 1991 it was fragmented and irrelevant. Zack Polanski’s election as leader of the Green party also saw a wave of entryism.
It was never tenable to allow a gathering composed of those who can afford, or choose, to turn up to be the party’s policymaking body. But for many Greens it is an article of faith; proof of the party’s commitment to “democracy”. They were called “fundis” (fundamentalists) in my day. A group of us (“realos”) tried to change things in 1990 with a motion arguing that a “leadership” structure was necessary in a world where we were under the media microscope. The motion passed, but the party split.
It is tragic to see a party that has pulled itself up by its bootstraps since the early 1990s, that has worked hard to win representation locally, and that has won seats in Westminster under a voting system that disadvantages newcomers, being stopped in its tracks by its lack of internal democracy.
Here’s a suggestion from an oldie. Organise an internal referendum on the motion and let the whole membership decide. And put an end to the travesty of democracy that saw it adopted in the first place.
Lyn Dade
Twickenham, London
As a member of the Green party, I was dismayed by the profoundly counterproductive “Zionism is racism” motion passed at conference on Sunday. Since his election as leader and his success in broadening the party’s appeal, opponents of Zack Polanski and the Greens have repeatedly sought to portray the party as antisemitic. This motion hands them the ammunition they have been looking for.
Until now, the Greens have stood out among UK political parties in their willingness to describe Israel as an apartheid state and to condemn its actions in Gaza as genocidal. That argument risks being obscured by an entirely avoidable debate over accusations of antisemitism.
The motion is also historically and politically flawed. While the form of Zionism represented by the Israeli state today is exclusionary and discriminatory, it does not follow that all forms of Zionism are racist.
Zionism emerged, in large part, as a response to the persecution of Jews in Europe. To erase that history from our understanding of Zionism is to overlook the reality of anti-Jewish racism that helped give rise to the movement.
I hope the Green party leadership can find a way to distance itself from this damaging motion and refocus attention on holding the Israeli government accountable for its treatment of the Palestinians.
Prof Benjamin Selwyn
University of Sussex
