The Greens are the Next Populist Threat to British Jews
Charlie Burton explores the Green Party’s growing tolerance of antisemitic rhetoric and the dangerous risk posed to British Jews.
The Green Party has a problem. Whether through malicious intention or general negligence, the party has been taken over by antisemites, from the bottom to the top, co-opting their environmental aims, spewing hateful rhetoric, and making Jews feel deeply unsafe in these turbulent times. British Jews are scared.
If that sentiment upsets you, then you are likely part of the problem. Over the past 30 months, we have seen friends, neighbours, and colleagues turn against us, either by actively participating in, or implicitly supporting, violent antisemitic rhetoric on our streets. That is the truth: whether you are the one chanting “globalise the intifada”, or the one silently standing next to the chanter, you are part of the problem. This idea is presciently articulated by John Stuart Mill in his 1859 work On Liberty, where he writes: “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction […] in either case he is accountable to [the victim] for the injury.” The Greens, it seems to me, have, at the very least, taken no meaningful action against antisemitism and have shown seemingly little interest in accountability.
Zack Polanski, in my opinion, would benefit from a moment of Millsian reflection. Across the country, in next week’s local elections, the Greens have stood candidates accused of vile antisemitism under the watch of Polanski, who has largely sat idly by. Dr Philip Brookes, for instance, standing in Newcastle’s Manor Park ward, has stated that it “takes serious effort not to be a tiny bit antisemitic”. His running mate, five miles across the city in Newcastle’s Arthur’s Hill, has spread antisemitic conspiracy theories surrounding the Holocaust. Both candidates, seemingly, are still running despite the Greens’ supposed pledge to “investigat[e] anything […] that doesn’t fit” with their values.
Closer to home, Cllr Dr Alex Powell, incumbent Green councillor for Oxford’s St Clement’s ward, has historically defended Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, who was briefly suspended from the party for comments comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Powell wrote: “The Daily Mail[’s] proof that Naz Shah is antisemitic […] is her at anti-Israel protests. So no proof then.” Shah herself has since admitted that her comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany was antisemitic, making Powell’s defence even more perplexing. Though perhaps, in the broader context of the Green Party, it is not.
In recent months, one of my favourite games to play on X (formerly Twitter) is seeing how long it has been since the Green Party last tweeted primarily about the environment. At the time of writing, the figure is 21 tweets across two days, with a large proportion dedicated to anti-Israel rhetoric or soft-core denialism surrounding the 29 April Golders Green attack. This demonstrates how far the party has strayed from its original goal of tackling climate change and how readily it now engages in a particularly insidious form of populism that endangers the British Jewish community.
The Greens, riding a wave of public pressure and support since 7 October 2023 and the Israel-Hamas war, have pivoted sharply, parroting fears and latent antisemitism that are increasingly prevalent in British society, particularly among the young. I have written previously about the Jewish experience in Europe spanning the modern period, and the uncomfortable truth I have found is that the Nazi bogeyman - the idea that Hitler’s death ended European antisemitism forever - is a fantasy. Antisemitism has returned to the mainstream political table, ugly as ever.
The Greens and Reform, in this regard, are two sides of the same populist coin. Racism, and antisemitism as a tributary of the politics of race, are central to both Reform and the Greens’ respective messaging. The natural conclusion of this, combined with Polanski’s disregard for concerns about antisemitism, culminated in the arrest of two Green candidates standing in Lambeth: Saiqa Ali and Sabine Mairey. Their charge? Inciting racial hatred online under Section 19 of the Public Order Act.
Ali has been photographed wearing the signature green Hamas headband used by Hamas’ proscribed military wing. She has also shared posts that would not look out of place in a 1937 edition of Der Stürmer, including imagery of a snake emblazoned with a Star of David strangling the Earth. Ali has also shared more modern forms of antisemitic rhetoric, including a post stating: “Don’t you know the rules?? We went through the Holocaust and now we get to kill everyone forever!!” - a clear example of Holocaust inversion.
Mairey, meanwhile, stated that “ramming a synagogue isn’t antisemitism. It’s revenge”, in reference to the March 12 Michigan synagogue attack. To be clear, this is only the tip of the iceberg, with Green candidates across the country inflaming tensions and amplifying antisemitic rhetoric while little meaningful action is taken by the party leadership. In fact, the Greens’ deputy leader, Mothin Ali, has recently encouraged members suspended over antisemitism allegations to seek “serious legal advice”, even helping establish a support network for candidates accused of antisemitism, evidencing the extent to which the Greens appear unconcerned by the fears of British Jews.
Many readers will understandably question how prevalent antisemitism can truly be in a party led by a Jewish politician. Polanski, however, is not representative of mainstream British Jewish opinion. His story, to me, evokes comparisons with the USSR’s Yevsektsiya, or “Jewish Section”, the Soviet organisation that campaigned against Jews by denouncing them to Stalinist authorities for “anti-Soviet” activities. The Yevsektsiya persecuted religious, Zionist, and cultural Jews while remaining isolated from the broader Jewish working class and intelligentsia of the Soviet Union. Active from 1918–1929, they undoubtedly contributed to the imprisonment, deportation, and deaths of thousands of Jews while claiming to speak on behalf of those same communities.
In 1921, after joining the Communist Party, the Yevsektsiya passed a motion calling for the “total liquidation” of Zionism. Clear parallels can be drawn between this and the upcoming motion to be debated at the Greens’ next conference entitled “Zionism is Racism”. The language may evolve to suit the cultural complexities of the time, but the implication remains evident. To reject Zionism entirely, in my view, is antisemitic because Zionism should fundamentally be understood as Jewish self-determination, and therefore defined by Jews rather than by their detractors.
The unfortunate fate of the Yevsektsiya may also, perhaps, serve as a warning to Polanski. Once they had served their purpose in attacking Zionism and Judaism more broadly, many members were themselves purged from the Communist Party. Several leading figures, including Semyon Dimanstein, were later executed during Stalin’s Great Purge. My suggestion is not that Polanski will share the same literal fate, but rather that he risks becoming a “useful Jew” whose position becomes expendable once more radical elements no longer require his legitimacy.
I wish I could end on a hopeful note, but until the broader public recognises that British Jews are frightened and finds the courage to stand beside the Jewish community, very little will change.
“I keep trying to convey something which cannot be conveyed, to explain something which cannot be explained, something in my bones, which can only be experienced in those bones.”
- Franz Kafka, Letters to Milena, November 1920
