Zack Polanski heckled by British Jews: why it happened

An unusually tense hustings at a north London synagogue turned into a showdown over Israel, identity and political signaling as five candidates for the Holborn and St Pancras by-election faced a packed room of Jewish residents. What began as a routine local-issues forum soon focused on questions of safety, antisemitism and the future of the Jewish state — and the candidate who dominated the evening was the Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, whose remarks provoked laughter, anger and an unmistakable sense of alienation.

Polanski, standing for the October 8 by-election, repeatedly described himself as an “anti‑Zionist” and called the Gaza war a “genocide,” positions that drew open derision from much of the audience. His attempts to invoke his Jewish background only intensified the reaction, leaving organisers and attendees polarized over whether a national political debate had crossed into personal affront.

Hustings shifted from local concerns to community security and identity

The event opened with candidates addressing neighborhood matters — housing, transport and local services — but quickly moved into fraught territory. Attendees raised urgent questions about the safety of Jews in Britain amid rising communal tensions and reports of violence targeting synagogues and Jewish neighborhoods. The conversation expanded into familiar national debates: the two‑state solution, Israel’s legitimacy and how to define Zionism.

• Key issues raised by the audience included community safety, antisemitic incidents, and the future of Israel-Palestine policy.
• Most candidates signaled support for a two‑state solution and reassured the Jewish community about tackling extremism.
• Polanski’s focus repeatedly returned to his repudiation of Zionism and to describing the Gaza conflict in the strongest possible terms.

Audience reaction: mockery and contempt after Polanski invokes Jewish identity

When Polanski referenced his Jewish roots, it had the opposite effect of what he may have intended. Rather than defusing criticism, his comments were met with laughter and scorn from many in the room — aside from a small group of Green supporters. Contestants and constituents voiced rejection of his characterization of Israel and of his public use of the term “genocide” in relation to Gaza, arguing that such language inflames tensions and endangers Jews in Britain.

Polanski pushed back, insisting that describing the war as a genocide was not antisemitic and warning that labelling such statements as antisemitic could, in his view, undermine Jewish safety by stifling criticism. That line of argument met fierce skepticism from audience members who said threats were coming from violent extremists and hate groups, not from community members who defended Israel’s right to exist.

Policy positions and defining Zionism: a clash with fellow candidates

While other hopefuls at the synagogue explicitly affirmed Zionism and the two‑state solution, Polanski refused to adopt those phrases and offered an unconventional definition of Zionism that many attendees and opponents rejected as a distortion. The dispute over terms quickly turned into an uproar, and the atmosphere grew visibly hostile.

Where the candidates stood

• Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Reform UK candidates spoke in favor of Jewish self‑determination and a negotiated two‑state outcome.
• Polanski emphasized anti‑Zionist policies and defended more confrontational rhetoric directed at Israel.

Outside the core Israel‑Palestine debate, Polanski appeared more comfortable discussing familiar Green Party economic and environmental positions, such as energy policy and public ownership proposals. Yet moments meant to humanize him — including references to a previously publicized episode involving hypnotism and a tabloid story — often backfired, eliciting ridicule rather than sympathy.

Internal party pressures: balancing activist expectations and electoral realities

The synagogue meeting also exposed the tension at the heart of Polanski’s leadership. On one side, many British Jews expressed anger and felt betrayed by his rejection of Zionism, by support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) tactics, and by repeated use of charged terms that critics say feed into left‑wing antisemitism. On the other, hardline elements within the Green Party have criticised Polanski for not going far enough, accusing him of insufficient commitment to anti‑Zionist causes and even labeling him with extreme terms.

This dynamic helps explain why Polanski repeatedly used incendiary language at the hustings: his audience may have been hostile, but the remarks resonated with activist factions within his party. Observers suggest his statements were as much about securing internal credibility as about persuading undecided voters in Holborn and St Pancras.

Moments that inflamed the crowd

A handful of moments crystallized the audience’s frustration:

• Polanski’s insistence on the term “anti‑Zionist”, despite widespread rejection from attendees.
• His application of the word “genocide” to describe the Gaza conflict and the consequent condemnation from many Jews present.
• Attempts to frame criticism of such language as itself a threat to Jewish safety, which many found offensive.

A personal remark in the room — an offhand insult referencing historical betrayal — underlined how raw feelings were. By the end of the session, Polanski exited quickly through a side door, avoiding extended interaction with a crowd that had turned openly hostile.

The broader picture: what this clash signals for the by-election and the Greens

The hustings illustrated a wider problem for the Greens as they seek electoral footholds: competing pressures from activists who demand uncompromising stances and from voters who expect mainstream reassurances on safety and community cohesion. Critics argue that the party’s trajectory on foreign policy and security risks alienating moderate supporters, while grassroots members fear dilution of radical principles.

• For many Jewish voters in the constituency, Polanski’s rhetoric has made reconciliation unlikely.
• Within the Greens, debates over how far to push anti‑Zionist policy remain unsettled and sometimes acrimonious.
• Electoral impact could hinge on whether the party prioritizes activist credibility or broader appeal in battleground seats.

After the event: optics, messaging and political theater

Critics left the synagogue saying the evening demonstrated a candidate out of step with a significant portion of his constituency, while supporters framed the episode as evidence of necessary dissent against established narratives. Polanski’s performance — including his repeated use of polarizing language and his apparent willingness to provoke a Jewish audience — served as a clear signal to internal party litigants even as it widened the divide with many local voters.

Despite attempts to humanize his image with anecdotes about his past career, few in the room seemed persuaded. The hustings underlined how political messaging around Israel and Jewish identity can quickly override local issues and become the defining feature of a campaign night.

Limor Simhony Philpott is a writer, policy adviser and researcher.

You might also like:

• Greens under fire after lawmaker calls party lunatic, deranged and evil
• Anti-Semitism surges as Israel’s fair-weather allies pull back support
• Zack Polanski’s Hypnotic Influence: How He Captivated the Greens
• Hate marchers couldn’t even take one day off
• Zack Polanski calls Reform UK hateful in controversial remark

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.