The Temple in Jerusalem stood for over 800 years. 400 for the first time and another 400 for the rebuilt Second Temple. Zionism is a longing to return to what had been denied to us by the Babylonians and later by the Romans. There are disputed boundaries for sure however to apply the word racism to the indigenous Jews and the Jewish returnees is an abomination. There has always been a strong Jewish population in Jerusalem as noted by the Ottoman Turks who ruled for centuries. If 800 years is meaningless then nothing on this planet is meaningful. Bless you Ms Posner for shedding light on a scurrilous blood libel that has reared its ugly head once more. Bernard Miller
The Green Party has long had a reputation for making itself unelectable through ideologically maximalist (although in the case of the environment, arguably virtuous) positions. They will remain unelectable if they continue to load themselves with policies most voters regard as extreme and bizarre.
Backing a motion to label Zionism as racism, which even the UN rejected decades ago is unlikely to expand its voter appeal and only confirms the same perception that has kept the Greens in the margins for decades.
This seems to be the case in Australia where their wholesale adoption of the most extreme aspects of gender ideology, and open antisemitism, saw them do poorly in our last Federal election last year. Their leader even lost his seat after a few terms in parliament.
In the UK context, where some communities have 'progressive' or Muslim bloc votes, a party can get elected on a platform of anti-Zionism. It may not lead to national success, except as part of a Red-Green coalition government, but in the meantime it will be sufficient to sustain political careers.
When someone gets elected, they of course get expenses and allowances which can fund a local political machine, pay for staff and so on. It's how Corbyn was able to build towards leadership of the Labour Party over several decades, despite being completely out of touch with his own party and the electorate in general, on issues including support for the IRA.
So, let's not underestimate what bad actors can achieve.
Zain: If the Green Party wants to make itself unelectable thru whatever means it may choose, it does not give them the right to label Zionism as racism. Let them remain in the margins! Note, that I am not Jewish. - Tim
Do you think this is a natural outcome resulting from internal alliances within the party or do you think the Greens are just trying to pick up the Muslim vote that Labour are losing, in the most dangerous way possible? Curious as to your thoughts.
Greens are now a hard-left anti-Israel machine, expertly harvesting identity blocs and grievance votes. Endless “genocide” lies. British elections hijacked by a foreign war. Voters sorted by imported rage. Add mass migration, drug legalization, soft justice, weak policing, and fantasy economics.
We saw it in 2024: Gaza Independents gutted Labour in high-Muslim seats. Now the Greens are cashing in on the exact same arithmetic.
They will pick up Labour seats, as you correctly say, in "the most dangerous way possible."
Antizionists don’t engage with Zionism or Israel at all. That’s why we remove the hyphen! We distinguish between anti-Zionism and antizionism.
Antizionists invent this evil thing they called Zionism and then stuff it with all of our context’s most hated qualities.
These libels stigmatise the Jewish state so much that it becomes marked for violence. Real jews get murdered having been characterised by the evils of a completely made up version of “Zionism”.
Exact same thing as what the Nazis did to Jews:
Create libel. Conspiracy. Jews stigmatised. Jews marked for violence. Moral seriousness of violence denied because the Jews had it coming.
Spelling antizionism today without the hyphen is the best way to demonstrate that this movement isn’t responding to “Zionism”, but is it’s own distinct hate movement.
And using the word antizionism to describe antizionist hate is a strategically valuable way to revoke the social permission to hate Jews as a 'nation'. Antisemites are pariahs. The antisemitic permission structure was removed many decades ago. If Jew hatred expresses itself as antizionism, it's given carte blanche to carry out the exile of 13,000 jews from poland, munich 1972, argentina 1994, intifada, october 7, washington, colorado, Bondi... those celebrating these things publicly denounce antisemitism all the time!
We have a responsibility to let antizionism stigmatise itself, simply by naming it. Until it becomes stigmatised, the vilification of Jews for the mere existence of Israel will continue to be fashionable.
Thanks Trisha for writing this. How many people within these factions support Motion A105? How many do not support this? At first glance it doesn’t appear to be many in either faction. Looking at this:
Support for the Motion: 332 co-proposers/supporters (as of early February 2026). This is the highest number for any motion submitted to the Spring Conference—described as “by a long way” the most popular.
Context: Supporters represent a committed, vocal faction (likely amplified by recent joins over Gaza/Palestine issues), but 332 is ~0.17% of total membership—though far more may back it passively. There are ~195,000 members.
Opponents against the Motion:
Jewish Greens (a small internal network): Actively urging all members to vote against it in the ballot and at conference, calling it divisive and potentially antisemitic. They argue it could alienate Jews and proscribe Zionist-identifying members. Exact size: Not public. Historically, Jewish membership in the Greens is estimated at 1–2% or less, so likely dozens to low hundreds.
A few public critics, e.g., councillor Andrée Frieze (raised concerns about language) and anonymous “whistleblowers” who reported the party to counter-terror police over “extremism fears.”
Reddit/Forums: Discussions on r/UKGreens show mixed views (some oppose as “flawed” or “unnecessary”), but no polls or tallies.
Silent Majority: ~194,500 members
BOTTOM LINE: A tiny but highly organized pro-motion group (hundreds) dominates visible support, making it the conference’s top motion. Opposition is even smaller and more fragmented. The full membership’s split is unknowable without a poll, but the party’s pro-Palestine tilt (e.g., prior “genocide” motion) and new members suggest A105 could pass if debated—though turnout at conference (~500–1,000 typically) will decide the outcome.
Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political ideology.
So, by definition, a political ideology cannot be "racist".
Nor can criticism of a political ideology be labelled anti-semetic.
Zionists work hard to conflate Zionism and Judaism. Doing so is an act of bad faith and exposes the dishonest agenda of the perpetrator of this language manipulation.
I was gonna say…the statement itself is one of those mind-stopping, brainwashing phrases that doesn’t even make sense. Obviously the Soviets were just following the events of the Civil Rights movements at the time and they went “ah-ha, let’s try using ‘racism’ this time.”
I notice now that young ppl don’t get suspicious of ideas/ideologies even when they know they’re being pushed by Russia, China, Qatar, Iran…they’re just like “huh…the CCP really ARE good ppl.”
And it is my understanding that the Jews are a civilization. Religion is only one aspect of it. And anyone that has ever been to Israel and called it an apartheid state is either delusional or an outright liar.
I do know an intelligent person who went to both South Africa and Israel, as a visitor, and reached that conclusion. However I believe it arises from the false premise that Jews are not from Judea: they are instead considered to be Europeans who converted to Judaism in Europe, and then 'colonised' Mandatory Palestine. That puts Zionism on the same footing as the Crusades.
How Judaism was meant to get to Europe without any migration from Judea, they don't say. I suppose they think the religion was imposed on these Europeans by sinister all-powerful Jews.
Supposing a people lose their right to return after a certain number of centuries and because of mixing with other races, that means the 'back to Africa' movement of Marcus Garvey and Rastafarian Zionism are also invalid. I'll leave the white 'allies' to explain that to Pan-Africans, black nationalists and the Nation of Islam.
The prototype for the authoritarian surveillance state with border walls and checkpoints was East Germany, which employed a lot of former Nazis of course. Socialists don't like to make that comparison when criticising Israel's security measures, for some reason. So, South Africa will have to make do as the point of reference.
I have a personal theory that most progressives can only focus on one political conflict at a time. In the 1980's it was South Africa, and celebrities would dunk on Paul Simon for working with African musicians. Now it's Palestine's turn again. Other countries' problems, not so much interest.
How people can accuse Israel of apartheid is beyond me. Ethiopian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, just to name a few. The Jews are not from Judea is an ahistorical argument with no teeth.
Bottom line: ideological impetuousness is the only explanation in my opinion.
Jews are an ethno-religious group as identified by DNA. Some ethnic Jews practice the religion of Judaism. Please do some research and maybe even talk to some Jews before lecturing us about who we are.
No "spin" or "feelings", just facts confirmed by DNA and medical conditions that are only found in ethnic Jews. How do you explain the many Jews who are secular?
The Temple in Jerusalem stood for over 800 years. 400 for the first time and another 400 for the rebuilt Second Temple. Zionism is a longing to return to what had been denied to us by the Babylonians and later by the Romans. There are disputed boundaries for sure however to apply the word racism to the indigenous Jews and the Jewish returnees is an abomination. There has always been a strong Jewish population in Jerusalem as noted by the Ottoman Turks who ruled for centuries. If 800 years is meaningless then nothing on this planet is meaningful. Bless you Ms Posner for shedding light on a scurrilous blood libel that has reared its ugly head once more. Bernard Miller
The Green Party has long had a reputation for making itself unelectable through ideologically maximalist (although in the case of the environment, arguably virtuous) positions. They will remain unelectable if they continue to load themselves with policies most voters regard as extreme and bizarre.
Backing a motion to label Zionism as racism, which even the UN rejected decades ago is unlikely to expand its voter appeal and only confirms the same perception that has kept the Greens in the margins for decades.
This seems to be the case in Australia where their wholesale adoption of the most extreme aspects of gender ideology, and open antisemitism, saw them do poorly in our last Federal election last year. Their leader even lost his seat after a few terms in parliament.
In the UK context, where some communities have 'progressive' or Muslim bloc votes, a party can get elected on a platform of anti-Zionism. It may not lead to national success, except as part of a Red-Green coalition government, but in the meantime it will be sufficient to sustain political careers.
When someone gets elected, they of course get expenses and allowances which can fund a local political machine, pay for staff and so on. It's how Corbyn was able to build towards leadership of the Labour Party over several decades, despite being completely out of touch with his own party and the electorate in general, on issues including support for the IRA.
So, let's not underestimate what bad actors can achieve.
Zain: If the Green Party wants to make itself unelectable thru whatever means it may choose, it does not give them the right to label Zionism as racism. Let them remain in the margins! Note, that I am not Jewish. - Tim
z
Do you think this is a natural outcome resulting from internal alliances within the party or do you think the Greens are just trying to pick up the Muslim vote that Labour are losing, in the most dangerous way possible? Curious as to your thoughts.
Greens are now a hard-left anti-Israel machine, expertly harvesting identity blocs and grievance votes. Endless “genocide” lies. British elections hijacked by a foreign war. Voters sorted by imported rage. Add mass migration, drug legalization, soft justice, weak policing, and fantasy economics.
We saw it in 2024: Gaza Independents gutted Labour in high-Muslim seats. Now the Greens are cashing in on the exact same arithmetic.
They will pick up Labour seats, as you correctly say, in "the most dangerous way possible."
Antizionists don’t engage with Zionism or Israel at all. That’s why we remove the hyphen! We distinguish between anti-Zionism and antizionism.
Antizionists invent this evil thing they called Zionism and then stuff it with all of our context’s most hated qualities.
These libels stigmatise the Jewish state so much that it becomes marked for violence. Real jews get murdered having been characterised by the evils of a completely made up version of “Zionism”.
Exact same thing as what the Nazis did to Jews:
Create libel. Conspiracy. Jews stigmatised. Jews marked for violence. Moral seriousness of violence denied because the Jews had it coming.
Spelling antizionism today without the hyphen is the best way to demonstrate that this movement isn’t responding to “Zionism”, but is it’s own distinct hate movement.
And using the word antizionism to describe antizionist hate is a strategically valuable way to revoke the social permission to hate Jews as a 'nation'. Antisemites are pariahs. The antisemitic permission structure was removed many decades ago. If Jew hatred expresses itself as antizionism, it's given carte blanche to carry out the exile of 13,000 jews from poland, munich 1972, argentina 1994, intifada, october 7, washington, colorado, Bondi... those celebrating these things publicly denounce antisemitism all the time!
We have a responsibility to let antizionism stigmatise itself, simply by naming it. Until it becomes stigmatised, the vilification of Jews for the mere existence of Israel will continue to be fashionable.
(also, really well-written piece, love your work)
Very well said, thanks
Thanks Trisha for writing this. How many people within these factions support Motion A105? How many do not support this? At first glance it doesn’t appear to be many in either faction. Looking at this:
Support for the Motion: 332 co-proposers/supporters (as of early February 2026). This is the highest number for any motion submitted to the Spring Conference—described as “by a long way” the most popular.
Context: Supporters represent a committed, vocal faction (likely amplified by recent joins over Gaza/Palestine issues), but 332 is ~0.17% of total membership—though far more may back it passively. There are ~195,000 members.
Opponents against the Motion:
Jewish Greens (a small internal network): Actively urging all members to vote against it in the ballot and at conference, calling it divisive and potentially antisemitic. They argue it could alienate Jews and proscribe Zionist-identifying members. Exact size: Not public. Historically, Jewish membership in the Greens is estimated at 1–2% or less, so likely dozens to low hundreds.
A few public critics, e.g., councillor Andrée Frieze (raised concerns about language) and anonymous “whistleblowers” who reported the party to counter-terror police over “extremism fears.”
Reddit/Forums: Discussions on r/UKGreens show mixed views (some oppose as “flawed” or “unnecessary”), but no polls or tallies.
Silent Majority: ~194,500 members
BOTTOM LINE: A tiny but highly organized pro-motion group (hundreds) dominates visible support, making it the conference’s top motion. Opposition is even smaller and more fragmented. The full membership’s split is unknowable without a poll, but the party’s pro-Palestine tilt (e.g., prior “genocide” motion) and new members suggest A105 could pass if debated—though turnout at conference (~500–1,000 typically) will decide the outcome.
wow.censored by Facebook and Google. I've never been on Facebook so not missing it there, but how do you get censored by Google?
Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political ideology.
So, by definition, a political ideology cannot be "racist".
Nor can criticism of a political ideology be labelled anti-semetic.
Zionists work hard to conflate Zionism and Judaism. Doing so is an act of bad faith and exposes the dishonest agenda of the perpetrator of this language manipulation.
I was gonna say…the statement itself is one of those mind-stopping, brainwashing phrases that doesn’t even make sense. Obviously the Soviets were just following the events of the Civil Rights movements at the time and they went “ah-ha, let’s try using ‘racism’ this time.”
I notice now that young ppl don’t get suspicious of ideas/ideologies even when they know they’re being pushed by Russia, China, Qatar, Iran…they’re just like “huh…the CCP really ARE good ppl.”
And it is my understanding that the Jews are a civilization. Religion is only one aspect of it. And anyone that has ever been to Israel and called it an apartheid state is either delusional or an outright liar.
I do know an intelligent person who went to both South Africa and Israel, as a visitor, and reached that conclusion. However I believe it arises from the false premise that Jews are not from Judea: they are instead considered to be Europeans who converted to Judaism in Europe, and then 'colonised' Mandatory Palestine. That puts Zionism on the same footing as the Crusades.
How Judaism was meant to get to Europe without any migration from Judea, they don't say. I suppose they think the religion was imposed on these Europeans by sinister all-powerful Jews.
Supposing a people lose their right to return after a certain number of centuries and because of mixing with other races, that means the 'back to Africa' movement of Marcus Garvey and Rastafarian Zionism are also invalid. I'll leave the white 'allies' to explain that to Pan-Africans, black nationalists and the Nation of Islam.
The prototype for the authoritarian surveillance state with border walls and checkpoints was East Germany, which employed a lot of former Nazis of course. Socialists don't like to make that comparison when criticising Israel's security measures, for some reason. So, South Africa will have to make do as the point of reference.
I have a personal theory that most progressives can only focus on one political conflict at a time. In the 1980's it was South Africa, and celebrities would dunk on Paul Simon for working with African musicians. Now it's Palestine's turn again. Other countries' problems, not so much interest.
How people can accuse Israel of apartheid is beyond me. Ethiopian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, just to name a few. The Jews are not from Judea is an ahistorical argument with no teeth.
Bottom line: ideological impetuousness is the only explanation in my opinion.
Not a Jew.
Not an Israeli.
But a Zionist.
https://open.substack.com/pub/futureofjewish/p/dont-call-judaism-a-religion?r=2q93jc&utm_medium=ios
That is the article I was thinking g about when I made the comment above!! Thanks for linking it here.
😊
Jews are an ethno-religious group as identified by DNA. Some ethnic Jews practice the religion of Judaism. Please do some research and maybe even talk to some Jews before lecturing us about who we are.
Just a bit defensive?! "Ethno-religious group"- is that the latest new spin phrase?
Followers of the Jewish faith are found across all ethnicities, including Aftrica, Europe(Ashkanazi), Middle East...
And followers of the Jewish faith may or may not be supporters of the political ideology embodied in Zionism.
Your feelings don't change the facts.
No "spin" or "feelings", just facts confirmed by DNA and medical conditions that are only found in ethnic Jews. How do you explain the many Jews who are secular?
Listened to Polanski squirming while interviewed by Dale at LBC. The Greens today are gripped by an Islamists force that will end attacking Polanski.
At Your Party Sultana forced Corbyn to defend himself for being “soft” on Antizionism, Corbyn’s unlike Polanski is not trekking on quick sand.