The twisted call for the destruction of only Israel by the British Green Party

“Zionism is Racism”. Really? So where does Hamas fit in, a proscribed terrorist group in charge of Gaza that wants not only to murder the Jews of Israel, but also Jews worldwide? Are they all sweet and light? Or are they never mentioned for fear of offending their gentle nature?

All Jews want is one small (it’s the size of Wales and surrounded by hostile ‛colonialist’ states itself!), safe homeland on their acknowledged biblically-connected territory. That is all Zionism is, something the Green Party, for some reason known only to itself, consistently, or perhaps wilfully, fails to either grasp or understand.

So was Pakistan wanting a homeland for South Asian Muslims also racism? After all, that is all Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted when India was partitioned in 1947 (a year before Israel) under a similar British mandate to that for Israel.

The decision by the Green Party of England and Wales to place Motion A105, titled “Zionism is Racism”, at the forefront of its autumn conference agenda represents a profound shift in mainstream British politics. The motion explicitly calls for the dissolution of Israel, advocating instead for a “single democratic Palestinian state” and endorsing the right to “armed struggle”. Beyond its immediate geopolitical implications, this policy platform opens up a fundamental philosophical and historical contradiction regarding state legitimacy, identity-based nationalism, and the selective focus of the modern progressive left.

By applying the Green Party’s own anti-partition framework to other 20th-century states, a stark historical parallel emerges: the 1947 creation of Pakistan. If we examine both countries applying identical criteria, there is a very deep inconsistency. So-called progressive parties seem to have internal standards that are not only a gulf apart in evaluating national self-determination and historic borders, but are completely hypocritical.

So can the Green Party explain why it is not OK for Jews, but perfectly acceptable for South Asian Muslims? Pakistan and Bangladesh were both ‛creations’, but unlike Israel, with no biblical link to Islam.

The rather ideological foundations of the Pakistan Movement (led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League) are extremely similar to early Zionism. Both movements mirrored the situation following the collapse of an empire (in this case, British India and the Ottoman Empire, respectively).

Jinnah’s “Two-Nation Theory” was simply that Hindus and Muslims constituted two entirely distinct civilizations that could not peacefully or equitably coexist due to their differences.

Consequently, he campaigned for a sovereign sanctuary specifically designated for South Asian Muslims. This exact logic underpins Zionism. The belief that the Jewish people require a sovereign homeland to guarantee their safety and self-determination away from structural persecution. Critics evaluating these states on a purely theoretical level must reckon with the fact that both represent forms of nationalist partition designed to protect a specific identity group.

A core pillar of the progressive argument against Israel’s legitimacy rests upon the violence, mass displacement, and territorial disruption of its founding in 1948 (the Nakba). However, if demographic disruption and humanitarian catastrophe are the metrics by which a state’s right to exist is revoked, the creation of Pakistan presents a vastly larger crisis.

The 1947 Partition of British India created one of the largest and most violent forced migrations in human history. Some 14 million people were displaced across the newly drawn lines, and sectarian violence between Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs led to a death toll estimated to be 1 million people or more. Entire demographic landscapes were violently erased in months.

Currently, the population of Pakistan is approximately 259.3 million people. It is the fifth most populous nation in the world. Official data from their most recent national census shows the non-Muslim population being 3.6%.

The population of Israel is approximately 10.305 million people, that is, a population 96.03% less than Pakistan. The non-Jewish population of Israel makes up 26.4% of the total population, with the largest minority group being Muslims 18.1% who enjoy all the benefits of the laws and protection for religious freedom that the Israeli democratic state ensures.

So which might be the genuine racist administration here?

Despite this immense structural trauma, Western, so-called progressive parties never table motions calling for the dismantling of Pakistan or its forced re-integration into a singular, secular Indian state. The selective targeting of Israel suggests that historical trauma and violent origins are not applied as universal standards of delegitimization.

The presentation of Motion A105 occurs against a backdrop of severe institutional friction, wherein the Green Party’s official rhetoric of “taking antisemitism seriously” stands in stark contrast to its internal disciplinary record.

An annual report published by the Jewish Greens explicitly condemned the party’s “failings” in tackling anti-Jewish racism, noting that disciplinary actions against members over antisemitic behaviors were highly variable and frequently fell short of political best practices. Furthermore, the party has faced repeat scandals involving candidates sharing incendiary anti-Jewish material online, alongside reports of activists within internal factions, such as “Greens for Palestine,” using deeply derogatory language against Jewish people.

And on top of all this, Motion A105 explicitly seeks to reject both the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration definitions of antisemitism. Trying to strip the party of these standardized frameworks, critics argue that the Green Party is actively dismantling the mechanisms required to police anti-Jewish hate within its ranks. It is making “anti-Zionism” into a shield for systemic prejudice and reinforcing itself as a party for antisemites.

The illogical framework used by the motion’s primary author, British-Palestinian activist Lubna Speitan, relies heavily on modern academic theories of “decolonization” and “settler-colonialism” to frame Israel as an illegitimate, non-indigenous entity.

However, applying this strict anti-colonial framework to the UK political landscape reveals a profound ideological irony. Proposers of these motions are themselves making use of the democratic, institutional, and civic frameworks of the United Kingdom, a state with its own deeply rooted history of global colonization and indigenous heritage.

When non-indigenous British citizens such as Lubna Speitan utilise a Western political apparatus to campaign for the erasure of a sovereign nation abroad, they engage in a form of external political intervention that mirrors the very colonial overreach they claim to oppose.

The demand for absolute indigenous purity in the Levant stands in total contradiction to the multicultural, post-colonial realities of the British society from which they operate.