Civil Rights

The United Kingdom’s Green Party has voted to define Zionism as a form of racism, drawing condemnation from the Israeli government.

In a binding vote held at the party’s conference over the weekend, members voted to usher in the new definition as well as a series of other strongly pro-Palestine policies.

However, just as the resolution has drawn international criticism, it has also proved internally controversial with four of the party’s five members in parliament opposing it.

Israel on Monday banned party leader Zack Polanski from the country just a day before the politician faces a by-election as he runs in the London constituency that former Prime Minister Keir Starmer represented.

Zionism emerged as a political ideology in the late 19th century. It called for the creation of a Jewish homeland at a time of rising anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews in Europe. Theodore Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist considered the father of political Zionism, originally proposed an independent and colonial Jewish state in either Palestine or Argentina.

Here’s what we know about what the Greens have said:

What is the resolution?

The Greens endorsed the motion to equate Zionism with racism by a vote of 1,022 to 813.

In addition, the party restated its “commitment to Palestinian liberation” and called for the “establishment of a single democratic state throughout historic Palestine”.

The party also recommitted to its support of Palestinians’ right of return as well as to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel.

“The real, material, manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians,” a Green Party statement said.

A  significant number of party members, including four of its five MPs, were against parts of the resolution, exposing divisions within the party.

Codeputy leader Rachel Millward said in a post on X that while the party is committed to “stop the genocide”, the term Zionism means “different things to different people, … so I personally do not think the policy helps us do the work we all want to”.

Meanwhile, Polanski, who is Jewish and was away campaigning during the vote, told journalists afterwards that if Zionism equates to the displacement of Palestinians, “that is clearly racist.”

Polanski said he, however, did not support the reference to a single Palestinian state and external entities should not decide what a future state would look like.

How has Israel responded?

Israel has accused the party of legitimising “terrorism”, and senior officials equated it to anti-Semitism.

“The Greens have adopted not only the green of Hamas, but also its ideology: the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle,” the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote on social media.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said it would “deliberately endanger Jews and Israelis everywhere”. Opposition leader Yair Lapid said the party was “racist”.

The Green Party has rejected equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and reiterated its stance against “any form of discrimination or harassment”.

“We know there is no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people,” Polanski and other senior party members said in a statement on Sunday.

Has Zionism been equated to racism before?

Yes. In 1975, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that “determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

The vote was sponsored by the Soviet bloc and the Arab League. It passed after 72 countries, largely from the Middle East and Africa, voted for it. Israel and 34 other countries – chiefly from the West – were against it. Thirty-two other countries abstained.

Just a year before, at the 1974 General Assembly, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had given his “olive branch” speech at the General Assembly.

About the same time, African countries opposing the apartheid regime in South Africa, which was increasingly allying with Israel, had resolved separately that the Israeli government was “racist” and both had an “imperialist origin.”

Also, in 1975, at the first international women’s conference, held in Mexico City, attendees decided there would be no international peace outside the “elimination of foreign occupation, Zionism, apartheid” and all other forms of “racial discrimination”.

However, the General Assembly vote proved controversial. Chaim Herzog, then-Israeli ambassador to the UN and later president, told the assembly in a speech that it was “based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance” and proceeded to rip up copies of the resolution in front of the audience.

The US too accused the UN of making “anti-Semitism international law”.

In December 1991, the US, under President George HW Bush, stepped up a campaign to revoke the resolution with Bush declaring at the UN that equating Zionism with racism “is to reject Israel itself” and to “challenge its right to exist”.

Israel also insisted it would not participate in the Madrid Peace Process to continue negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders if the resolution was not cancelled.

After much pressure from the US, an overwhelming majority of countries voted for its revocation – 111 to 25, including European and African countries.

Who else equates Zionism with racism?

Jewish Voice for Peace, the American anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian advocacy group, has also named Zionism as a movement that creates a “racist hierarchy with European Jews at the top”.

In a February statement, the group reiterated its stance against what it called the “colonial ideology” of Zionism’s founders.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, an employment tribunal in 2024 backed anti-Zionist activist and professor David Miller, who was earlier sacked from his post at the University of Bristol in 2021 for his views that the movement was “inherently racist”.

Israel’s top court has overturned an election panel’s ban on Arab parties contesting parliamentary elections this month, saying the decision had not met the legal requirements for excluding them, according to Israeli media.

The Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously on Friday to undo the Central Elections Committee’s disqualification of the country’s two main Arab-majority political lists – Ra’am, also called the United Arab List, and the Joint List, which is an alliance of Hadash, Ta’al and Balad.

The decision keeps Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up about 20 percent of the population, in the race after critics accused the committee of double standards ahead of the October 27 Knesset vote.

The court also voted 7-2 to reinstate Ofer Cassif, a sitting Jewish member of the Knesset from the Arab-Jewish Hadash party and an outspoken critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, media reports said.

The two dissenting justices said Cassif backs “armed struggle against the state of Israel”, which is grounds for his disqualification.

In September, the elections committee voted to disqualify the Joint List and Ra’am as parties, as well as Cassif and Sami Abu Shehadeh, head of the Balad party, as individuals.

Balad leader withdraws

The Supreme Court has nearly always overruled the committee when it votes to ban candidates.

However, at a hearing on Thursday, Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit told Abu Shehadeh that a majority of the nine justices favoured disqualifying him from the election.

They gave him until Friday to withdraw, saying that if he did not, he would be disqualified, according to the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation.

Abu Shehadeh withdrew from the election after that.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, led the push to bar him over an article written after the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Abu Shehadeh described the attack as “an important historical event” in the piece, but denies supporting it.

Balad said in a statement that a court-ordered removal, rather than a voluntary one, would have had “grave consequences for the country’s political and parliamentary life” as it would set a precedent around the removal of Arab candidates.

Double standards

The Ra’am party made history after the 2021 election, becoming the first Arab party to join an Israeli government when it took part in a disparate coalition that briefly removed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power. Most Palestinian citizens of Israel had stayed out of coalition politics until then.

In this election, Ra’am is also fielding a Jewish Zionist candidate for the first time, Yoav Segalovitz, who won popularity in Arab communities for his work to curb crime as deputy minister for internal security.

The election committee’s September vote drew accusations of a double standard, as Palestinian-led parties faced exclusion while parties led by far-right ministers, some of whom have been sanctioned internationally, stayed on the ballot.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, Abu Shehadeh said he withdrew because he “didn’t have any other choices”.

Although the Supreme Court has restored the Arab parties to the ballot, Abu Shehadeh said the reversal did not make the original disqualifications acceptable.

“In the end, what happened yesterday was a historical catastrophe for democracy, or the very narrow margins of democracy in the State of Israel,” he said. “I was disqualified because I think differently, because I have a different narrative on how to read history, the present, and the future in the place that we live today.”

Seven Minnesota judges face ethics complaint after speaking publicly about the US president’s immigration crackdown.

The United States Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke publicly about the pressure their courts came under during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The judges spoke to The New York Times this month about dealing with a flood of cases during Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests in the Minneapolis-St Paul area from December to February.

The Justice Department says it crossed an ethical line by talking publicly about the cases.

Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of showing “obvious bias” against the Trump administration and called on them to step aside from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“When we have a situation like we have now, where you have a judge, a couple of judges, just not only violating the canons in our view but also showing bias in what they’re saying, we have no choice but to act,” Blanche told reporters.

The judges say they did nothing wrong. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s federal court system said legal experts had found that the judges were “well within the ethical rules” when they spoke to the newspaper.

The complaint is the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked some of the president’s policies and, in several cases, accused government lawyers of failing to follow court orders.

One of the judges named in the complaint, Patrick Schiltz, alleged that the government did not comply with nearly 100 court orders related to immigration enforcement in January alone.

In one ruling, he wrote that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “is not a law unto itself”.

Schiltz was nominated by Republican President George W Bush and previously clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

He later told The New York Times that what happened in Minnesota’s federal courts during the crackdown “created a grave threat to the rule of law”.

Schiltz also pointed to guidance issued by a federal judicial ethics panel in February, saying that judges can speak publicly about issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence.

“That is exactly what I did,” he said.

A United States immigration judge has ruled the leader of Wisconsin’s largest mosque can be deported under a controversial law that United States President Donald Trump’s administration has used against non-citizens advocating for Palestinian rights.

Judge Jayme Salinardi ruled on Wednesday that Palestinian-born Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, can be removed from the US based in part on a memo by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”, according to his lawyers.

Sarsour, who has lived in the US for more than three decades, called the ruling “deeply disappointing”.

“I will continue fighting to defend the right to free speech and to stay in the country I have called home for more than three decades,” he told The Associated Press news agency.

His lawyer, Patrick Taurel, strongly rejected the decision.

“I wish the world could see the evidence that we presented and hear the testimony that the court heard because the case we presented compels only one conclusion, which is that Salah is not deportable,” Taurel told reporters on Wednesday.

“He’s done nothing wrong. He should be given back his green card, frankly, with an apology for what’s being done to him.”

The ruling does not mean Sarsour will be immediately deported.

His lawyers have 60 days to argue that sending Sarsour back would put him at risk of torture, which could protect him from deportation under the Convention Against Torture. If they lose, they plan to appeal. Taurel said he can’t be deported while that appeal is pending and will remain in the US for the “foreseeable future”.

‘Extreme deference’

Sarsour was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in Milwaukee in March, nine months after Rubio issued a memo declaring him deportable on foreign policy grounds.

The June 2025 memo invoked a rarely-used US law that allows the Secretary of State to seek the deportation of non-citizens whose presence could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The administration has used the same provision against pro-Palestinian activists Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi.

Sarsour’s lawyers criticised the “extreme deference” Salinardi gave to Rubio’s memo. But Taurel said the judge believed his hands were tied by an earlier ruling in Khalil’s case, which found that a letter from the Secretary of State could be enough to make someone deportable on foreign policy grounds.

That meant Salinardi could not look behind Rubio’s decision to examine the evidence supporting it, Taurel said.

“If the Secretary of State says the person is deportable, it is game over,” he told reporters Wednesday.

The government did not win on all of its arguments.

Salinardi rejected its allegation that Sarsour had lied on his green card application. Taurel said the judge also rejected an allegation that Sarsour had falsely claimed to be a US citizen in order to vote.

Al Jazeera reached out to the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security but did not receive responses by the time of publication.

Decades-old convictions

Sarsour is separately fighting the Trump administration in federal court over his detention while his deportation case is ongoing.

A federal judge ordered his release from ICE custody in June after 81 days, questioning why decades-old convictions that US authorities had long known about suddenly justified detaining him. The judge found there was a “substantial” case that the government was retaliating against him for speaking out about Palestinian rights.

The Trump administration has appealed his release, arguing that Sarsour’s convictions in Israel make him a security threat. He was imprisoned in 1988 after confessing to throwing stones and a Molotov cocktail at Israeli military personnel, and was convicted again in 1995 over an attempt to hold weapons.

Sarsour denies the offences, and his lawyers say the confessions were forced through torture. His former lawyer, Jawad Boulos, testified in August that Sarsour was coerced into signing confessions and was not convicted of an offence tying him to a “terrorist” organisation.

Taurel criticised Salinardi for giving what he called “extreme deference” to Israeli government records submitted by ICE, which Sarsour’s lawyers argue were incomplete and relied on confessions obtained through torture.

“A great deal of evidence we presented was ignored,” Taurel said.

The evidence challenged Israel’s military court system, where he said secret evidence can be used and Palestinians can be denied access to lawyers for extended periods.

Luna Droubi, an attorney representing Sarsour, said the case raises broader questions about whether immigrants can speak freely on political issues without fear of being targeted by the government.

“Why raise these arrests now?” she said. “Do I have the right to speak out about issues that matter to me? What if I draw a political cartoon? Am I going to be arrested and detained because of that?”

‘The end of my life’

Sarsour said being deported to the occupied West Bank “means the end of my life”.

His lawyers argue his prior treatment in Israeli custody shows he could face torture if sent back. Taurel said Sarsour’s former lawyer testified that his case stood out because Sarsour told him that Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, had taken him to hospital while in custody.

The judge also named Jordan as a possible destination. Sarsour travelled to the US on a Jordanian-issued document, but his lawyers say he is not a Jordanian citizen and has no right to live there. They believe he could ultimately be returned to the West Bank and Israeli custody if sent to Jordan.

Demonstrators protest against UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.

Police in the United Kingdom have arrested more than 50 people protesting in support of the banned Palestine Action group outside a Labour Party conference in the northwestern English city of Liverpool.

The local Merseyside Police confirmed the arrests in a statement published on Sunday.

The police said those taken into custody at the protest, organised by Defend Our Juries, had displayed material in support of Palestine Action, proscribed as a “terrorist” group by the Labour government in July 2025 under the Terrorism Act.

According to the statement, police respected the rights of people to protest lawfully while aiming to keep the peace and ensure the public are safe.

More than 250 protesters sat outside the conference centre holding banners with words supporting the group on Sunday, before dozens of police began making arrests.

English band Massive Attack singer Robert Del Naja was among those arrested.

After asking demonstrators if they were going to continue holding up the signs, officers led people away, telling them they had been arrested under the Terrorism Act.

Reporting from Liverpool, Al Jazeera correspondent Milena Veselinovic said the protesters wanted to put proscription “front and centre of the UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s agenda” on the first day of his party’s annual conference.

“Being arrested is nothing in comparison to what the people in Gaza are going through, and it’s also worth it, because this is about our right to free speech,” one protester told Al Jazeera.

Another said that “there are priests, there are healthcare workers, there are people who deeply care, and deeply care about right and wrong.”

Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, said protesting “is one of the most effective tools” to make government leaders listen and described the arrests as “a truly shameful attack on freedom of speech”.

“The new prime minister can reform our laws so that communities are protected in coming together and demonstrating on the issues they care about. Will he do so?” she said.

Activists also confronted Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband inside a restaurant in Liverpool, demanding that he lift the ban on the group and declare Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The activists left after Miliband reportedly refused to comment.

A civil disobedience campaign has emerged since Palestine Action was outlawed in July 2025, with more than 3,600 people arrested for showing their support for the group, often while holding signs reading, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

The UK Supreme Court is now set to hear the case after London’s Court of Appeal upheld the government ban in June.

Head of the Roman Catholic Church holds ’emotional’ two-hour meeting with seven abuse victims in French town of Lourdes.

Pope Leo XIV has thanked a group of survivors of clerical abuse “for their painful testimony” and “reaffirmed his commitment” to end harm by Catholic priests at a meeting in southwestern France, the Vatican said.

The leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics is on a four-day visit to France.

On Sunday, the pontiff visited the pilgrimage town of Lourdes, where he privately met seven survivors of child abuse, now adults, and promised to further efforts to reform the Church in the wake of the global sexual abuse scandal.

The group said in a later news conference that the meeting was emotional and touching.

“When he saw the state I was in, he took me into his arms,” survivor Jean-Marie Delbos said, adding, “It was an extraordinary moment.”

The 80-year-old was abused as a pupil at the nearby boarding school of Notre-Dame de Betharram, where staff have been accused of physical and sexual abuse over several decades.

The survivors said they felt heard and that they were impressed by Leo’s compassion and knowledge of their individual cases.

But they hoped the words would be accompanied by action.

Jerome Guillement, who has written about a priest abusing him as a teenager, said at the news conference that the pope understood the “systemic” nature of sexual abuse in the Church.

“From his point of view, the perpetrators are individuals, but what allows it to continue is the systemic dimension within the institution,” he said.

“He certainly believes that the Church has done a great deal in France, but he also believes that the Church in France still has a tremendous amount left to do.”

Local leaders hoped Leo’s visit would help repair the Church’s standing after a 2021 independent inquiry found that some 330,000 French children had been abused by Catholic clergy and lay leaders over seven decades.

The pope told an estimated 150,000 people gathered for a Mass in a field near the famed Catholic shrine in Lourdes earlier on Sunday that the Church must have the courage to face its past.

Veronique Garnier, another survivor who met with the pontiff, said she had found the Mass, in which Leo referred to abuse without directly apologising for it, troubling and wondered why she had attended.

But she said she was encouraged by her meeting with Leo.

“I do indeed believe there is hope – hope that there can be change and truly listening to us at a deep level, rather than just superficially with beautiful words that are never followed by any real action,” she said.

Leo also spoke about the abuse scandals in a closed-door meeting with French bishops on Sunday, according to a Vatican-provided text.

He was expected to visit the northeastern city of Metz on Monday before returning to Rome the same day.

Lawyers criticised mass arrests under emergency powers that allowed authorities to detain people without charge.

The Caribbean country of Trinidad and Tobago has ended a state of emergency that granted the government extraordinary powers to combat crime, including the ability to imprison people without charge.

The country’s prime minister told parliament on Wednesday that the government would not extend the state of emergency. One was issued in 2024 and another in 2025, with extensions lengthening both. Instead, the government would seek a “permanent legal framework”.

“The proposed legislation will establish a permanent legal framework for targeted operations against violent crime, gangs, illegal weapons and the criminal networks that finance them, while providing safeguards for law-abiding citizens, judicial oversight and parliamentary accountability,” Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said in a social media post.

The government had faced criticism for a campaign of mass arrests that suspended key civil liberties in what it said was in the name of cracking down on crime and those the government deemed threats to security. A prominent businessman and his wife were among those arrested over alleged involvement in a plot to assassinate the prime minister, but were never charged and later released.

The measures were last extended in June, with the prime minister stating that more than 5,800 people have been arrested since a March extension. About 2,250 of those have yet to be charged, and it remains to be seen whether they will be released now that the state of emergency has ended.

Lawyer Criston Williams told The Associated Press news agency that he expects some of those detained without charge to bring lawsuits against the government and called for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to investigate possible abuses by the government.

“They are transported to us blindfolded, shackled, hands behind their backs, a gray knapsack over their heads,” he said, adding that meetings with lawyers took place in the presence of five armed men from law enforcement, “who refer to themselves as operator one, two, three, four, five. There’s a camera above, so guess what, there’s nothing like attorney-client privilege.”

Police reported a record 624 killings in the country of about 1.4 million people in 2024, a figure that police say dropped to 369 in 2025. Police state that 255 killings have been recorded this year, compared with 268 over the same period in 2025.

Protesters in about 20 cities, including Berlin, Hamburg and Munich, demand the banning of the Alternative for Germany.

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets across Germany to protest against the Alternative for Germany (AfD) after the far-right party won a state election by a landslide.

About 150,000 demonstrators turned out in roughly 20 cities on Saturday, including Berlin, Hamburg and Munich, in rallies organised by Pruef, a campaign group pushing for a ban on the AfD.

Protesters carried signs reading “Ban the AfD now” and “Democracy needs no alternatives.”

“A broad cross-section of civil society is taking to the streets to prevent the enemies of the constitution … from gaining government power,” said Christoph Bautz, head of Campact, another campaign group involved in the protests, which put turnouts at about 25,000 in Hamburg and 12,000 in Munich.

According to police, several thousand more joined separate demonstrations in Berlin.

The AfD held its own counter-rally in the German capital, attended by Kristin Brinker, the party’s lead candidate for Berlin’s upcoming regional election.

The protests follow a stunning result for the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt, a state in eastern Germany, where the party took nearly 44 percent of the vote on September 6 — far ahead of the roughly 17 percent won by Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which has long dominated German politics.

The AfD, known for its anti-immigration stance and friendly posture towards Russia, fell just short of an outright majority and is now in talks with other parties to try to form a government, which would make it the first far-right party to lead a German state since the Nazi era ended in 1945.

AfD state leader Ulrich Siegmund called the result historic, telling supporters: “The people have made it absolutely clear that they finally want political change and, above all, they have shown that they want it with us.” He has since signalled openness to working with other parties, after previously saying he wanted to govern alone.

The AfD’s growing strength has deeply unsettled many Germans, given the country’s history and its commitment to never repeating it.

The party is projected to win 39 of 83 seats in the state parliament, three short of a majority. It now needs a coalition partner, though all mainstream parties have so far refused to govern with the AfD under a longstanding policy known as the “firewall.” The far-right party has never joined a governing coalition anywhere in Germany, at either state or national level.

The unease has fuelled growing calls to ban the AfD altogether, though that would be legally difficult in Germany, and Chancellor Merz has been reluctant to pursue it.