the fact that the entire british media is out to destroy the only jewish leader of a political party just shows how antisemitic the british media is.
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
22 points (86.7% liked)
UK Politics
5703 readers
39 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Media calls out antisemitic motion adopted by the Green Party. Criticises Polanski for lack of leadership on the issue.
Green Party fans call out media for being antisemitic for calling a motion antisemitic ๐คจ๐ซช.
Actual Green Party fringe supporter logic right there.
except calling out genocide and zionism (a political movement) is not antisemitic.
Proposing a one state solution where Israel is dismantled and all citizens become Palestinian is racist.
The Green motion describes Zionism as an ideology supporting "an ethnonationalist Jewish state", and supports instead a "single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4yx9663q6o
We can robustly denounce Zionism and Genocide and the illegal occupation of land by the current Israeli government, but the answer isn't reverse racism.
I mean, I think he's handled it pretty well. He srill comes across as extremely genuine in his interviews. If he resigned, I think it would be a loss for the Greens and a big win for everyone else.
I think I agree. He handles himself well. It's a shame the rest of the party isn't more politically savvy. It's a case of having a star player but the rest of the side letting the whole team down. No doubt the latest motion at their conference hit them in the polls. It's upsetting that the Greens have so few MPs but they aren't helping themselves sometimes.
I'd rather we stay out of parliament if getting elected means we must refrain from standing up for our own values
Those aren't the only options, there are plenty of ways of doing both, but the Zionism is Racism motion was very badly done. The whole thing is an argument in semantics which does nothing to help Palestinians while painting the green party as anti-Semitic (even if the wording of the motion is talking about a political ideology, it will be viewed that way). The fact that the motion's promoters repeatedly said that the wording for the motion will not be used to discipline Jewish members who are associated with Zionist institutions (i.e. pretty much any British synagogue), and then fought and defeated a motion which made that explicit just strengthens that allegation.
There would have been plenty of ways to pass a motion saying that Israel is committing a genocide and that Palestinians have a right of return and to reparations for the harm caused in the nakba, but the motion passed is the party handing a stick to it's opponents to beat it with.
I believe Zionism is Racism and I am not afraid of saying it, even if that means getting beaten with a stick.
If you think this paints the Greens as antisemitic then the real problem is people associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism (which is itself antisemitic, btw), and that's the thing we need to fight against. Refraining from saying the truth isn't going to help.
Good for you, are you also a party trying to persuade the public to vote for you so you can enact meaningful improvements to people's lives? Because if not its not really a useful comparison.
My point was that a party can say those things without going at it in a politically brain dead way that gives your opponents an easy way to paint you as something bad even if it's not true.
So do you think as a party we should hide what we truly believe so people will vote for us, and once we are in we can show our true faces? Let's be a little moderate now but once we are in we will be different and enact radical changes?
where have i heard that before? hmmm...
No I think that if you want to be a political party you have to think about how you phrase things, consider that you don't live in a vacuum with only your core supporters who think exactly the same as you do, and think about how other people will try and spin your words to make them look bad. Then taking all that in mind craft your message in order to work round those constraints to say what you mean without falling foul of them.
You know, do politics.
Democratic decision making in a party conference shouldn't be put under this kind of scrutiny because that's how you silence good faith discussion and party democracy.
How conference decisions are then articulated publically is a completely different issue. Conference isn't where these considerations ought to be made. This, ironically enough, stifles free speech and open debate which liberalism claims to love so much.
As a party we should focus on what's important, not on slogans. "Zionism is Racism" isn't a radical change and it doesn't enable radical change - it's a slogan. It would have been much better to focus on more important policies like sanctions against Israel than on this slogan. Or what about North sea drilling, or poverty, or many other debates that this took attention away from?
Read the resolution. It's more than three words.
No doubt the latest motion at their conference hit them in the polls.
There's plenty of doubt about that. More likely this will further strengthen their support, which will rise even further as Burnham fails to live up to the hype.
audience capture 101 for the greens
like the attenpted DSAification of the dems in the states
and when they get any power they will be Mamdani'd
lol
If he resigned
I don't think he has any option but resign at this stage.
If it was close he might've been okay but Abdi-Wali won with a 3k majority. And this is exactly the type of seat the Greens should be winning.
Looking at it in isolation, I can understand how it might not seem close, but this is a seat that Labour have held forever (i.e., since 1983) and 3k is the closest margin there has ever been. 2 years ago the margin was 11k (>14k between Labour/Green). These are big gains in a safe Labour seat.
The Greens came within 13% of winning one of the safest of Labour seats.
It's a super safe seat for Labour. Look at this survey:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/1x1q0el/constituency_polling_from_holborn_stpancras/
Keir Starmer still has a net positive rating in the constituency.
This is such a manufactured storm in a teapot, I thought the general public knew to laugh at this shit by this point
It's hard to fight the establishment, the greens have a lot of campaigning to do. Go Zack Polanski!
Maybe the Greens should prioritise the environmental aspects of their politics and TACTICALLY place social domestic issues second to those (though work to show how social policies link with environmental ones). The right-wing media has been able to hijack Green foreign policies and use the anti-semitism strategy they refined against Corbyn's Labour. Green's haven't pushed back hard enough on the "populists" label they've been given and the idea they're a mirror image of the far-right.
The electorate isn't the same as intellingent, aware politically interested people. Half of the electorate are half-asleep at the best of times and just want someone to tell them who to vote for. They expect Greens to be "Green" and, the Green Party does need to take this into account. At a time when the climate crisis is the worst we've experienced where are all the protests? It's like there's been a decision not to make a big deal of this and channel protest into electoral work instead. I'd be interested to know if this was actually the case.
Its his third own goal as leader.
How's this an "own" goal when he didn't even support the motion? Or are you saying not supporting it is the own goal?
He totally abrogated responsibility as leader, making no public statement for or against and even bravely running away instead of voting either way. Gaza was a major issue in the byelection and he cocked it up.
Very much agreed. And TBH I think he shouldn't have run in this by-election, which overlapped with the Party conference where an incredibly heated motion will be voted on, to begin with. Especially shouldn't have told members to not attend the conference to campaign for him.
He was selected as leader partly with the promise he wouldnโt seek a seat, so I think his previous career as a hustler may be bleeding back into his new life.
Nah, there have been way more than that.