Will Polanski Fall Into the ‘Zack Trap’ and Lose Green Leadership?

As the Green Party gathers for its conference this weekend, leader Zack Polanski might appear to have plenty of reasons for confidence.

A little more than a year after taking charge, the former hypnotherapist, who once specialised in breast-enlargement treatments, has energised the party and helped drive a sharp rise in its polling support.

Under his leadership, the Greens have secured a high-profile by-election victory and taken control of numerous councils. Next week, Polanski will also have the chance to unseat Labour in former Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency and enter Parliament himself.

His progress has been built on recasting the Greens from a niche environmental movement into a leading force on the British hard Left.

Yet that transformation could now create his most serious political challenge, as 4,000 delegates meet at the Brighton Centre for the party’s conference.

Many of the newer members are strongly opposed to Israel, and some have questioned whether Polanski—the only Jewish leader of a major UK political party—takes a sufficiently hard line on the issue.

Polanski has repeatedly described Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks as “genocide”. Even so, hardliners within the party have long voiced concerns about his Jewish identity. One leaked message in a Green WhatsApp group claimed he had been unable to break with his Jewish background or “Zionist indoctrination”.

Against that backdrop, critics believe his opponents at the conference have devised what they regard as a test of his position on Israel and Zionism—a “Zack Trap”.

If he fails that test in their eyes, it is widely expected that some members will attempt to remove him as leader.

The dispute centres on an activist-backed motion titled “Zionism is Racism”. Its supporters have campaigned aggressively for the proposal, while critics accuse them of promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and misinformation about the October 7 atrocities. The motion now has substantial backing among party members.

It argues that support for Zionism—the belief that the Jewish people should have a state in their ancestral homeland—should be “treated as any other form of racism”.

If adopted, the policy would place Polanski in the position of treating his own mother and other relatives, who have previously expressed support for Israel, as racists.

The proposal could also make membership difficult for practising Jews, as many belong to synagogues that identify with Zionism and could therefore face immediate suspicion within the party.

The motion has another contentious element: it calls for support for Palestinian “resistance” against “occupation” by “all available means, including armed struggle”. Critics argue that this wording amounts to endorsing violence by terrorist organisation Hamas.

The motion was initially submitted to the Green Party’s spring conference in late March, but time ran out before delegates could debate it. Its supporters blamed what they described as a “Zionist” effort to block the proposal.

Its removal from the agenda was likely a relief for Polanski, who had given an equivocal response when questioned about it before the conference, saying that the term Zionism could have different meanings.

Supporters have since returned with renewed determination, encouraging hundreds of new “entryist” members to join the party in the hope of ensuring that the motion is debated this time.

With 800 co-proposers, it is now the most widely supported motion in the history of the Green Party conference. However, its prominence has also caused deep unease among sections of the party.

Some of the old guard, recognising that the Zionism is Racism motion is undeniably racist and could affect the party’s popularity, have put forward a counter-motion called Building a Consensus for Palestinian Liberation with the aim of uniting the party.

While it agrees Israel is a genocidal country, it does not call for it to be dismantled and says it favours peaceful resistance over violence.

This has infuriated the pro-Palestine cohort. The Daily Mail can reveal that in an online workshop on Tuesday night to fight off the counter-motion, a series of extreme amendments were agreed upon which would make it as inflammatory as the original.

One agreed upon was that anyone who calls themselves a Zionist should be regarded as a ‘far Right or religious extremist’ who needs to be reported to Prevent, the government’s counter-extremism programme. 

(This is despite the Green Party’s own policy to scrap Prevent, which it says disproportionately targeted Muslims and reinforces the idea that Islam is inherently linked to terrorism.)

Another amendment states that ‘anyone who voluntarily relocates to Israel is inciting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians’.

This poses another problem for Mr Polanski, who has relatives in Israel.

The entire row threatens to break up the Greens and has left Mr Polanski, whose election leaflets in Holborn and St Pancras feature a flag of Palestine, ‘in a bit of a pickle’ said one Jewish Green Party member with a level of understatement.

Shahrar Ali, a former deputy leader of the Greens, said that by allying himself with the ‘hard-Left and Islamists’ Mr Polanski has created a ‘monster’ which threatens to destroy him. 

‘Conference is going to be an existential moment for Polanski, but he only has himself to blame,’ he said.

‘We now have a Palestinian mob within the party, which he has encouraged relentlessly, but they’re now turning against him because he’s not puritanical enough. 

‘He’s not ‘anti-Zionist’ enough. He has failed to recognise his own contribution to the monster that he’s created. Now he’s being turned on, and he can please nobody.’

The Zionism is Racism motion is proposed by Lubna Speitan, a British-Palestinian artist, who admits to joining the party simply to push her agenda. 

She has been drumming up support during the summer with the help of some unsavoury characters.

In an online discussion promoting the motion in July and shared on her social media, Speitan spoke with notorious firebrand Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu.

This was three months after Dr Mos-Shogbamimu infamously posted a social media rant criticising police officers for their use of force while trying to prise a knife from a man who had allegedly stabbed two Jewish men in North London – a post Mr Polanski shared to widespread criticism. 

During their online discussion Ms Speitan said she backed ‘armed resistance’ and that being labelled as ‘anti-Semite’, ‘Hamas supporter’ or ‘terrorist’ was a ‘badge of honour’.

She also claimed reports of Hamas rapes during the October 7 attacks were ‘disinformation and propaganda’ – despite a UN investigation finding the evidence strongly suggested such atrocities had occurred.

She nodded her support as co-host Dr Mos-Shogbamimu unleashed a string of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, even claiming Zionists and the Israeli government had ‘allowed’ and ‘wanted’ the October 7 terror attacks to happen.

On a separate podcast to promote her motion, Ms Speitan sat beside another extremist who insisted: ‘Until we break the chains of Zionism none of us will ever be free’ and said there was no such thing as liberal Zionism: ‘You’re either with the struggle or against the struggle. You’re either with the Nazis or against the Nazis.’ 

Ms Speitan has allied herself with a group called the Anti Zionist Movement (AZM) which is run by disgraced conspiracist professor David Miller and doctor Rahmeh Aladwan, currently suspended from her NHS job because of her extreme anti-Semitism.

Polanski is certainly not pure enough for them: they have put out a leaflet called ‘Zack Polanski is a Zionist’. 

Miller has also written an article ‘outing’ the Jewish Green members in a far-Left online magazine called The Canary, which earlier this week put out a news report hinting that the Dubai-Tel Aviv plane hijacking was a ‘false flag’.

Extremists have been encouraged to join the party to back Ms Speitan’s motion, with social media posts from the Greens For Palestine group providing step-by-step guides on how to enrol, sign up for conference and then vote to ‘help make the Green Party anti-Zionist’.

One Jewish Green Party member, who said they have been offered security for the conference, told the Daily Mail this week: ‘It has gone from a party where the majority of members respected each other, even if disagreeing on an issue; at party conference we could have a heated debate on the conference floor and then we’d still socialise in the bar later. 

‘Now, there are newer members, the entryists, who are abusive and threatening towards other members, especially Jews and anyone challenging anti-Semitism.

‘These newer members are obsessed with only one issue, Palestinians, and will not engage with anyone who doesn’t pass their purity test, i.e. you have to be a vocal anti-Zionist.’

Former party deputy leader Mr Ali said none of this was surprising, accusing the Greens of ‘refusing to criticise Hamas’s terrorist tactics’ since October 7. 

‘There is a direct causal relationship with the Green focus and anti-Jewish hatred in this country,’ he added.

‘Whatever your stance on the politics of that region, to be oblivious to the impact of your words on anti-Jewish hatred is unforgivable. The way they have been campaigning on the subject is morally beyond the pale. 

‘Polanski has failed to recognise the contribution he personally has made to the rise of anti-Semitism in this country.’

Mr Polanski has tried to stay above the issue, but when asked whether Zionism was racism at a Jewish hustings for the Holborn and St Pancras by-election last week, he equivocated that the term ‘means different things to different people’.

But this time, to boos from the audience, he added: ‘If you’re defining Zionism as a displacement genocide, which in practice Zionism has become, then that is racism.’

The tilt was welcomed by Greens For Palestine as a ‘step in the right direction’. But the problem Mr Polanski has is that there is no room for nuance or hedge-sitting among most of his new party members.

Mr Ali, who is now suspended from the Greens and is suing the party, alleging discrimination for his gender-critical beliefs, said: ‘Zack understood that this motion is too extreme, even for his party.

‘While it might be popular for the hard-Left and Islamist wing, it is politically suicidal because it is so deeply problematic… Polanski has been severely damaged by this.’

The Jewish Green Party member agreed, saying: ‘This conference is very important for Zack. It could be the make or break of him depending on whether he still passes the Greens For Palestine purity test if the motion is discussed. 

‘If Zack doesn’t win the by-election I’m scared Mothin Ali will try to take over.’

The party’s deputy leader famously greeted his election as a Green councillor in Leeds by saying it was a ‘win for the people of Gaza!’ and adding: ‘We will raise the voice of Palestine. Allahu Akbar!’

He is the only senior party leader who is publicly supporting the Zionism is Racism motion and this week earnestly explained it was because it was part of the Greens’ proud tradition as an ‘anti-war’ party.

This sudden love of peace from Mr Ali might come as a surprise to anyone who saw his posts as the October 7 terror attacks were unfolding, when he appeared to enthusiastically celebrate Hamas’s actions.

But describing himself as ‘anti-Zionist’ makes Mr Ali a compelling candidate for the party’s new base.

The Green Party and Lubna Speitan were approached by the Daily Mail for comment.

Under party rules, leaders face re-election every two years. But with internal opposition growing against Polanski, even completing his full term seems increasingly unlikely.

As one disillusioned ex-Green member told the Daily Mail this week: ‘Zack has been the useful idiot for the hard-Left in the Greens. He revitalised the party and his Jewish background has been a useful foil while the hardcore got themselves organised. 

‘Now they are ready to seize full power and install Ali. And then, as far as they are concerned, the revolution will be complete.’