Zack Polanski's Avoidance of the Green Party's Anti-Zionism Vote Reveals a Failure of Leadership
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/rafaelbehr. "Zack Polanski had the chance to show real leadership. He blew it | Rafael Behr | The Guardian." October 7, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that Green party leader Zack Polanski dodged a crucial moment to show real leadership by skipping his party's vote on a controversial anti-Israel policy, choosing instead to campaign elsewhere. This, the author says, reveals Polanski as someone who follows the crowd rather than leads it, more interested in being popular than standing firm on difficult issues.
Conclusion
Zack Polanski failed to demonstrate real leadership when he avoided taking a clear public stance on the Green party's controversial anti-Zionism motion, exposing him as a follower of his party's activist base rather than a leader who shapes it.
Premises
- The Green party passed a motion declaring Zionism 'fundamentally incompatible with anti-racist principles,' effectively alienating the vast majority of British Jews who hold some belief in Israel's right to exist alongside criticism of its government.
- Polanski, despite being Jewish and having a personal stake in how Zionism is defined, chose to leave the conference to campaign in a byelection rather than stay to debate and vote on the motion.
- His only substantive intervention—a 'safeguarding' amendment to reassure Jewish members—was rejected, and he did not visibly fight for it using his personal influence or popularity.
- Polanski's leadership style depends on audience approval and charisma ('solar-powered'), meaning he avoids taking unpopular or risky stances where he might face internal party opposition.
- The motion reflects capture of the party by a militant activist caucus (previously associated with Corbyn-era Labour) that prioritizes anti-Zionism over the party's core environmental mission, and Polanski did nothing to resist or redirect this trend.
- The European Green group has publicly sought 'clarity from leadership' following the vote, indicating that Polanski's silence has created confusion and reputational risk for the party internationally.
Assumptions
- True leadership requires taking personal risks and publicly stating convictions even when they may be unpopular with one's base.
- A leader's avoidance of a contentious debate is itself a meaningful and revealing act, rather than a neutral or strategic choice.
- The anti-Zionism motion is indeed harmful or extreme, rather than a legitimate, defensible political position.
- Polanski had genuine power to influence the outcome of the vote had he tried, despite the party's membership-controlled rulebook.
- Avoiding a vote on principle is equivalent to lacking belief or conviction, rather than potentially reflecting a calculated political strategy or respect for party democracy.