Is the green party starting to regret it's association with Islamists?

[mids2019]

The green party, ostensibly about climate protection and general progressive values seems to have gotten into bed with Islamist sympathisers and the amount of anti semitism and basic hatred of their own country is now obvious.

The green party now at least locally are known as a party that has sympathies towards all manner of Islamist causes including Hamas's objective to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth.

Wouldn't be surprised if they produce a motion declaring climate change a Jewish conspiracy........

Yes, you should open them then.

Suit yourself and yes I know you will

.

I'd almost have more respect for Polanski if he'd flat out said he thinks Israel should exist. Instead he's pussyfooting around the issue to appease people who think he's an abomination.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/03/27/greens-for-palestine-antisemitic-whatsapp-messages/

This weird unity between Islamists whose prime concern is Israel and it's existence with progressive feminist LGBT rights supporters can't end well within the green party and in my opinion will implode. The green party should have never got into bed with the those that wish the non existence of Israel and indeed an increasingly Islamic society in the UK. Gaza might have got a few more supporters for the greens temporarily but at a massive cost.

There clearly is a genocide. Many are just choosing to turn away and doing nothing.

In your opinion. Not as a legal determination.

No court has found that Israel committed genocide. Everything else, however authoritative it may appear, is an allegation — not a legal determination.

https://combatantisemitism.org/special-features/legal-determination-of-genocide/

Really there isn’t, destruction of buildings isn’t evidence of genocide. Genocide has a very specific meaning, if Israel had been trying to murder every single gazan simply for being gazan this war would have been over within a few weeks. They could have just carpet bombed gaza into oblivion. The deaths contextulised against a dense urban environment where the idf is trying to get at tunnels (which by the way have caused collapse themselves) and conbatants who refuse to identify themselves unless they are parading the dead bodies of children so they can hide amongst civilians. There is evidence of deaths caused by hamas and islamic jihad themselves (the carpark incident is a good example).

It’s messy and awful for Palestinian civilians but it’s not a genocide. Words mean things.

Some of us have eyes and can form conclusions without having a special court confirm it. If I were, for example, raped, I wouldn't require a court to convict the man 2 or 3 years later to confirm this.

Even the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan are not considered genocide acts. There is a definition for genocide and certainly I don't think Gaza gets near that recognized bar.

Let's be real what the Islamists mean by genocide. It's actually the creation of Israel that underlies their definition of genocide and they would argue 'the genocide' occurs d after the second world war as in their minds the creation of the state of Israel was in of itself genocidal. There are those that have latched onto the word genocide to justify any sort of action against Jews including horribly mocking protests in London on October 7th.

Intent has been expressed and atrocities carried out. Have you seen the aerial photographs of the destruction?

I find it truly sickening that you say 'it's been messy and awful for Palestinian civilians but it's not a genocide. You might describe a harrowing day with a couple of toddlers who painted the walls of their bedroom red as 'messy and awful'. It disturbs me that you are minimising what is going on to such a massive extent.

You would know you were raped because you would know you were raped. Others wouldn't necessarily know you were raped and that is why courts exist to study all the evidence objectively and reach a verdict.

Genocide has a very specific meaning. Personally I wouldn't like to say either genocide has or has not been committed because I understand that it is incredibly complex to ascertain. Hence the court case will likely take years to reach a verdict (which I will respect either way).

I just can't understand how they can be pro-transgenderism and queer theory, and also pro-Islam/Palestine, when Islamist regimes throw anyone LGBTQ off tall buildings.

In September 2025 the UN Human Rights Council's independent Commission of Inquiry, chaired by Navi Pillay, said Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It also concluded that Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant have incited the commission of genocide.

In June this year the same commission went further: it reported that Israeli authorities and security forces have deliberately targeted Palestinian children, and said that was one of the key elements establishing genocidal intent.

I also believe you are using the term 'islamist' as a racist slur.

This is true about the UN Commission of Inquiry but that was just one small group. The UN themselves acknowledge that only an international court case can legally determine whether genocide is being committed or not.

The independent commission does not officially speak on behalf of the entire United Nations body.

In a recent episode of the Free Speech Union podcast, External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw was joined by the former deputy leader of the Green Party, Dr Shahrar Ali — and he did not hold back. Dr Ali described the Green Party as "an actual danger to society", citing what he called an "unholy alliance of Islamists and gender ideologues" that has taken hold of the organisation.

Dr Ali is well placed to make such judgements. He served as deputy leader of the Green Party between 2014 and 2016, but was removed as justice spokesperson in 2022 over his gender-critical views and later expelled from the party in 2024 for the same reason.

In September 2024, he won a landmark employment tribunal case against the Green Party — the first of its kind — with the judge ruling that he had been discriminated against and unlawfully dismissed as justice spokesperson on grounds of his protected belief. He was awarded £9,100 in damages and the Green Party was ordered to pay £90,000 towards his legal costs.

While Shahrar is a Muslim himself, he did not shy away from criticising the Green Party — and in particular one of his successors as deputy leader, Mothin Ali — for deliberately targeting Muslim voters and communities with low levels of integration during the Gorton and Denton by-election in February. He stated that he believes firmly that religion should be kept out of politics.

He told Connie Shaw: "As somebody who does self-identify as a Muslim, I keep my religion out of politics — it's as simple as that. And I think religion has to be kept out — within reason — of politics, which should be a secular space. When I campaign as a Green candidate, I campaign first and foremost as a Green."

freespeechunion.org/news/the-green-party-has-been-infiltrated-by-islamists-and-is-a-danger-to-s

Exactly. The Commission of Inquiry consists of just three people.

They can investigate and express an opinion in their reports, but they don’t have the legal authority to formally rule on whether a genocide is taking place.

The problem with the Green Party is that they have traditionally been too focused on environmentalism, which is a noble goal, but it will only reach a certain percentage of the British public.

I think quite wisely they have realised that there is a growing untapped reservoir of disenfranchised Muslim voters in this country that are essentially politically homeless because of Labour's weak response to the horrific human rights abuses on the people of Gaza. And if you look at history, the left making a pact with austere conservative Islamic voters is an excellent way to help shield the right from taking power.

There will be a few wrinkles that will need to be ironed out. But muslims are famously open to different points of view, so long as you appreciate their position on dealing with Israel and sincere cultural practices like cousin marriage, which the NHS has said the risks are exaggerated.

The trouble is people pounce on the word “UN” to then imply that the UN have called it a genocide. They haven’t.

That's fair enough if you say that you personally don't feel confident one way or the other without a legal definition. I don't feel the same but we are all different.

What is entirely wrong though is multiple people making statements like 'there is no genocide' on these threads and even getting posts deleted by posters who state that there is. Have you also objected to those who have said 'there is no genocide' categorically and told them that they should wait for this to be confirmed legally? If not, why not? Presumably you object to both types of statements, given what you say above?

Where to start with this …

The Green Party have not been “too focused on environmentalism” in the past. It was the whole point of the Green Party to raise awareness of environmental issues, and they have been very successful in that.

They are becoming less relevant now that mainstream parties are also adopting green policies. The answer wasn’t to align themselves with disenfranchised Muslims because that is nothing to do with their core values and doesn’t align with their core voter base. While they gained many new votes they are now losing many of their traditional voters so no better off in the end.

Are you able to define what you mean by 'pro Islam', 'pro Palestine' and 'Islamist'. What exactly are the Green party in favour of, in your opinion? Is this evidenced in writing by the party themselves?

Same question to @mids2019 too.

Absolutely. Another one people keep quoting is the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

I suppose that’s because of the important sounding name, even though anyone can join the association, no academic credentials required.

@rainingsnoring ”What is entirely wrong though is multiple people making statements like 'there is no genocide' on these threads and even getting posts deleted by posters who state that there is. Have you also objected to those who have said 'there is no genocide' categorically and told them that they should wait for this to be confirmed legally? If not, why not? Presumably you object to both types of statements, given what you say above?”

If that case, as you confirm it has not been confirmed legally, why do you keep saying it’s a genocide? Surely you are just as biased as the deniers?

What I see on MN is that people only respond “there is no genocide” after someone else has first confidently declared that there IS a genocide. I don’t see people pushing their opinion on others that there is no genocide without the prior provocation. They are arguing against something they disagree with, not just making the statement out of the blue.

It’s not a rule break to say that there is a genocide or that there isn’t one. It’s all personal opinion, so that won’t be the reason why the posts you refer to got deleted. My personal opinion - since we’re all allowed one - is that it won’t be ruled as a genocide. But I don’t know better than an international court studying all the evidence, including much we don’t have access to.

When I point out the facts of the situation- that it will be determined by an international court - that obviously applies to both sides of the argument.