Laura Kuenssberg, "What do you believe about zionism? Is it inherently racist?" Zack Polanski, "What's controversial is that 75,000 Palestinians have been murdered in the last few years, including more child amputees in modern history" "When you take into account that they are being murdered because they're Palestinian, that's very obviously a racist ideology" Laura Kuenssberg, "You don't think it's controversial to say zionism is racist?" Zack Polanski, "The controversial thing is that western governments have turned away while Palestinians have been murdered because they're Palestinian, that's clearly racist" Laura Kuenssberg, "Every will have heard I asked you a question about your belief about zionism and you immediately started talking about something else, which many people have watched around the world and been horrified by" "Is it your view that zionism itself is inherently racist?" Zack Polanski, "The reason I'm answering that question (this way) is that rather than have a debate about semantics, its about the practical application of zionism" Laura Kuenssberg, "Your party had a conversation about the semantics. Which is why it's important to understand your belief. This is exactly about semantics" Zack Polanski, "You said I was missing from a debate, but before that debate I went on TV several times, including the FT, saying I think zionism is racism in the practical application of it" "The conference had a debate about the word, and I said debates about the word are unhelpful, and I still think that" "If we're talking about what's happening in Palestine right now, people are still dying every day, and my party is unified in saying that this government is still arming that genocide, we're still selling arms licenses, we're still sharing intelligence, and we've not boycotted, divested and sanctions, that's what we need to do" Laura Kuenssberg, "Do you accept that for many Jewish people zionism is simply the right to have safe place to live, a homeland?" Zack Polanski, "I think that's what people think it means, but in practical application, which is what we're talking about here, that homeland has come at a cost of the Palestinian people" "I want equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians" "The practical application of zionism has not resulted in that" Laura Kuenssberg, "Is it for the Green Party to tell Jewish people what zionism means?" Zack Polanski, "It's for me as the leader to tell teh truth, and in in 1948 there was the Nakba, 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. That's racist" Laura Kuenssberg, "I'm asking you about right now" "Is it the Green Party's job to tell British Jews, Jews around the world, Jews in Israel, what zionism means?" Zack Polanski, "My job is to do two things. One to reassure Jewish communities that under my leadership one will be excluded in the Green Party based on their faith or their background" "Jewish people, including myself very obviously, are very welcome" "Second, it is my job to tell the truth, and this story of a Jewish homeland has come at the expense of Palestinians" "There are many Jewish communities around this country and around the world including leftwing Jews like myself, who feel great shame that in the name of Judaism we are seeing Palestinians murdered" "We need to stop conflating being Jewish and criticising Israeli state, they are two separate things" My view: This exchange matters because the argument over Zionism is not just a dispute about a word. It reaches into people’s deepest fears: Jewish people’s long-standing need for safety and a secure home, and Palestinians’ right to live freely, safely and with equal rights in their own homeland. Those concerns must not be treated as mutually exclusive. Polanski’s answer focused on what he called the practical consequences for Palestinians: mass death, displacement and the loss of homes and land. The scale of the killing is immense. A population survey published in The Lancet Global Health estimated that more than 75,000 Palestinians died violent deaths in Gaza during the first 15 months of the war. The UN has also described Gaza as having the highest number of child amputees per capita worldwide. But a serious conversation must also recognise why many Jewish people understand Zionism as the right to a safe homeland: centuries of persecution, antisemitism and the Holocaust are part of that history. Asking whether Zionism is “inherently racist” is a question about a broad and contested political idea, and Jewish people do not all define it in the same way. A Jewish person’s attachment to Israel, or belief that Jews should be safe there, does not by itself make them racist. And criticism of Israeli government policy is not automatically antisemitic. The test should be what happens to people in practice. A homeland cannot mean permanent domination over another people, the denial of their rights, or the displacement and destruction of their communities. Palestinian freedom cannot mean attacks on Israeli civilians or denying Jewish people a safe future. Hamas’s killing and kidnapping of Israeli civilians must be condemned; so must the killing of Palestinian civilians and the conditions that leave them without safety, homes, medical care or a credible political future. Peace requires both peoples to be secure and politically free. That means protecting Israeli civilians from attacks and hostage-taking, and ending the occupation, displacement and unequal treatment that deny Palestinians a viable future. It means equal rights, accountability for abuses, humanitarian access and a political settlement that neither people has to accept as a threat to their existence. If leaders cannot say plainly that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve safety and self-determination, they are not offering a path to peace. They are asking one people to live with the fear of the other.