Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
★★★
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Politics

UK Green Party to Vote on Motion Declaring Zionism a Form of Racism

UK Green Party to Vote on Motion Declaring Zionism a Form of Racism

The vote places the Green Party at the center of a widening debate within British politics over how parties define and address antisemitism and Palestinian solidarity simultaneously.

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · October 3, 2026

The UK Green Party is preparing to hold a membership vote on a motion that would formally declare Zionism a form of racism, according to Middle East Eye, which reported on the development ahead of the scheduled Sunday vote.

The motion was authored by Lubna Speitan, a British-Palestinian member of the Green Party. If passed, it would commit the party to an official position that Zionism, the political movement supporting a Jewish homeland in the territory of modern Israel, constitutes racism. The precise procedural consequences of such a vote within party governance have not been publicly detailed by party leadership as of October 3, 2026.

Middle East Eye reported that the motion has attracted sustained pressure on Green Party members from pro-Israel advocacy groups. The nature and scale of that pressure, including whether it involves formal complaints, media campaigns, or direct contact with members, has not been fully specified in available public reporting.

The vote has drawn significant national media attention in the United Kingdom, according to Middle East Eye. The Green Party has not yet issued a formal public statement on the motion's content or its implications for party policy, based on available records as of this writing.

The motion arrives at a moment of active political tension in the UK over how political parties navigate questions related to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Labour Party spent several years under former leader Jeremy Corbyn embroiled in a prolonged institutional dispute over antisemitism definitions and internal discipline, a process that resulted in an inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which concluded in 2020 that Labour had unlawfully harassed members and discriminated on the basis of religion or belief, according to the EHRC's published report.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which the UK government adopted in 2016 and which many British political parties have formally endorsed, includes certain forms of criticism of Israel in its list of examples. Whether the Green Party's motion conflicts with that definition is a question the party has not publicly addressed in available source material.

Speitan's motion does not appear, based on available reporting, to address distinctions between criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism as defined by the IHRA, though the full text of the motion has not been published in the source material reviewed for this article. The full text would be necessary to assess the motion's specific language and scope.

The Green Party of England and Wales currently holds four seats in the House of Commons following the 2024 general election, in which the party recorded its strongest parliamentary result to date, according to UK Electoral Commission results. The party's positions on foreign policy and international human rights have become increasingly prominent in its public platform since that election.

Pro-Israel groups in the UK, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust, have historically monitored and responded to party motions or statements they regard as crossing into antisemitism, though neither organization has been specifically named in available reporting as directly involved in the current Green Party situation. Which organizations are specifically engaged in the pressure campaign described by Middle East Eye has not been confirmed in publicly available records.

The outcome of the vote is unknown as of publication. Whether the motion passes, fails, or is amended will determine the next phase of this institutional debate within the Green Party and is expected to draw further public response from Jewish community organizations, pro-Palestinian groups, and other UK political parties.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
★
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
★
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
★
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
★
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com