The vote rejected the proposed classification decisively, but the argument was not simply a defence of Israel’s government. The most-respected No cases framed Zionism as a claim to Jewish self-determination; one put the challenge to the motion this way: “only one group in the world is NOT entitled to self determination.”
The best-respected Yes case went straight to the meaning of the ideology: “Ethnic supremacy is racist no matter which group is advocating it.” Other Yes voters described Zionism as an “ethnostate” or argued that opposition to it should not be conflated with antisemitism; one said they had changed their mind and switched to No.
No voters did not all defend Israeli policy. One said they distrusted Zionism but would criticise its doctrines without treating that as hostility to Jews; another argued that “you can oppose settlement expansion” without calling a Jewish state illegitimate. That distinction left the Yes case’s central charge of ethnic exclusion largely unanswered, while Yes voters did not resolve how their classification would preserve space for criticism without casting Jewish self-determination itself as racist.
The debate sits within the UK argument over how to distinguish criticism of Israel from antisemitism, sharpened by the Green Party motion in the background. Its sharpest No argument was not that Israel’s actions were beyond criticism, but that a broad label could make such criticism harder to hear.
The result was clear; the competing definitions were not.
90 Opinions
A “no” vote for me, but mostly because this question is much more nuanced than a straight up or down vote. The actions of the Israeli regime in Gaza are abhorrent, and we should be able to discuss that without being branded antisemitic, but broadly labelling Zionism as racism is as useless as proscribing Palestine Action.
1. Zionism is about Jewish self-determination, not racial superiority. 2. Jews are a people, not a race. 3. National self-determination isn't inherently racist.
I don't think racism is appropriate, but endemic xenophobic or ethnicism possibly. Jewish people believe they are elected by God as His people, rather than any elevation of themselves explicitly, and that carries a contractual ethical responsibility for the land whereby any loss of the land of Israel is a judgment against them by God for their failure to uphold their testament with Him. It is a complex historical relationship marred by post imperial colonialism and the Shoah.
Let’s be quite blunt here, and I say this as a Jew, the absurd restrictions that currently exist on how we’re allowed to discuss the senseless violence happening in Gaza and throughout the Middle East is abhorrent and I’m sick of being told how to think about Israel as a British citizen. I’m voting Yes not because I endorse this (I don’t care about legislating on words) but to oppose herd thinking.
Ive said no however that does not believe that actions that Israel have been and are taking since the original Palestinian incursion have far exceeded what is acceptable and feel more needs to be done to find a way to stop there current actions.
At the end of the day, this reflects your ethical and moral values, so be careful about how you vote.
Changed my mind. NO. Have done a deeper search, I disagree with my original vote.
By definition, positive discrimination is discrimination, therefore this is. It is not the only one either, Islamaphobia is identical to anti-Semitism. Any law or actions that favour one over another, positively or negatively is a firm of racism. And yes, racism exists against the west too.
I have been making note of the agents who are benefitting from this conflict being perpetual or ending with them as the winners. If you are not experiencing major cognitive dissonance when the news cycle hits on this matter, you have clearly chosen a side & nothing will change your minds. I remain on the side of the innocent. And I now judge this by my own standards, until everybody is ready to shut up & come to the table with some humility & honesty. No more violence.
No. Polanski should have listened to Kirk Lazarus, “never go full r*****”