Tomorrow, I will attend services at the synagogue to recite the Kaddish, a traditional prayer for mourners, in honor of my father, who passed away eight years ago this week. However, if I were affiliated with the Green Party, I might fear that this act could lead to my expulsion due to accusations of racism.
This may sound exaggerated, but such a warning has emerged from Green Party activists who oppose a resolution set to be discussed at the upcoming party conference this weekend. This proposal, if approved, would declare that Zionism is equivalent to racism and would immediately become part of the party’s official policy. According to this perspective, since the Greens do not allow membership from self-identified racist organizations, they would also need to exclude members of groups that identify as Zionist. This classification encompasses nearly all synagogues and synagogue movements in Britain and globally, raising the alarming possibility that participating in Kaddish could result in expulsion from the party.
While this situation may appear convoluted, it is important to recognize that the Greens have transitioned from a fringe party to a more significant political force. In February, they achieved a victory over Labour in a by-election, an event that ultimately contributed to the ousting of Keir Starmer. The Greens’ leader, Zack Polanski, is now aiming to secure Starmer’s former seat in Holborn and St Pancras during the by-election next Thursday. However, the controversy surrounding Zionism has overshadowed his campaign efforts. Should he fail to win the seat, it could signal the end of the Green Party’s momentum, which would alleviate a considerable electoral challenge for Labour and Andy Burnham. Consequently, the stakes are quite high.
A more charitable interpretation of this situation might suggest that the push against Zionism stems from genuine outrage over the destruction in Gaza, coupled with misunderstandings regarding the nature of Zionism, Jewish identity, and the dynamics of antisemitism.
That said, this interpretation is optimistic. The individuals advocating for this resolution could have simply condemned the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza. Instead, their stated goal is to challenge the very existence of Israel and the foundational movement of Zionism that led to its establishment.
Polanski, who has been navigating this complex issue, has noted that Zionism carries different meanings for various people. Prominent Israeli author and peace advocate Amos Oz characterized it as a family name encompassing a diverse range of ideologies. Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, cultural Zionists clashed with religious Zionists, while Marxist Zionists opposed their right-wing militaristic counterparts, all of whom were in conflict with the prevalent socialist Zionist ideology. Despite their differences, they shared a common belief in the right of Jews to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, which they referred to as Eretz Yisrael, or the Land of Israel, while the rest of the world knew it as Palestine.
Today, being a Zionist essentially means supporting the idea of a Jewish national home within some part of historic Palestine. There are right-wing Zionists who advocate for control over the entire territory, while left-wing Zionists seek a smaller area, aligning with a Palestinian state. However, both groups identify as Zionists. Even those like the controversial minister Itamar Ben-Gvir are Zionists, just as many Jewish and Israeli activists who oppose occupation identify with Zionism, choosing to act as a protective presence for Palestinian villagers in the West Bank. To label all these individuals as racists demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the term Zionism and the diversity of those who identify with it.
This situation also reflects a deliberate misinterpretation of Jews and Judaism. Recently, social media has seen many self-identified progressive non-Jews instructing Jews on the nature of their own faith—an attitude that would likely be deemed unacceptable if the majority group were addressing any other minority. The recurring mistake is the assumption that Zionism is solely a political ideology, entirely separate from Judaism, allowing for a denunciation of the former without any animus toward the latter. If only the reality were that straightforward.
For instance, the Kaddish prayer I will recite includes references to “Israel” three times. The Jewish community has been referred to as Am Yisrael, the people of Israel, long before the term “Jew” became common. Additionally, as I recite the prayer, I will face east toward Jerusalem, using a prayer book filled with references to Jerusalem and Zion, which poetically express a yearning for return. This sentiment is not a modern political stance; it is a tradition that has been part of Jewish practice for centuries. Long before Zionism emerged as a political movement, the longing to return to the Land of Israel was deeply embedded in the essence of Judaism.
This is one reason why the terminology of “settler colonialism,” which appears in the Green Party’s motion, is a poor fit for Zionism. When the French settled in Algeria, they were not returning to a land where their ancestors were born, to a place where the French language had been spoken two millennia prior, nor to a territory to which the persecuted French had longed to return for 2,000 years. Furthermore, while some Jews are indeed anti-Zionist, it is rare to find a synagogue, beyond the most extreme ultra-Orthodox groups, that does not identify in some manner with Zionism—not necessarily with specific Israeli governments or policies, but with the fundamental idea and aspiration of the Jewish return to their historic homeland. This dream has been a fundamental aspect of Jewish identity throughout history.
