How Dangerous Is Zack Polanski?

Looking beyond media caricatures to ask whether Zack Polanski’s politics are genuinely dangerous, or simply deeply unrealistic.

I found myself going through old messages between me and Zack Polanski. To be clear from the outset, these are not messages for public consumption, nor would I ever share them. They were private conversations that took place while Zack and I were members of the same party, the Liberal Democrats, and continued just after he left to join the Greens. It was a time when we were both enthusiastic, restless, and searching for change. We both wanted something better and were trying to work out what that actually looked like.

Zack eventually removed me as a friend because of my pro-Israeli stance. I do not think he fully understood why that position mattered to me or why I believed it needed to be voiced. If you genuinely support a two-state solution, you must be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Zionist. You cannot logically support a two-state solution while rejecting the existence of one of those states. I have always been clear that I support a two-state solution, not a one-state solution, because a one-state solution is genocidal regardless of which side you argue it from. That shift in Zack’s position disappointed me, although I think I now understand how and why it happened.

The media has portrayed Zack as extreme or unhinged. That portrayal is unfair. From my own experience, Zack is not a bad person. He is actually a very nice person. He has a good heart. He genuinely cares about people, about the planet, and about the world he lives in. He is motivated by love and kindness, and those are qualities worth respecting. His ideas may be skewed, but that does not make him malicious or hateful.

Where Zack goes wrong is that his compassion has no boundaries. His politics are driven by an ideal of universal love that assumes humanity will meet it halfway. You see this clearest in his borderless world vision and open borders instincts. In theory, a cosmopolitan world without borders sounds appealing. In reality, it ignores how people actually live and think. People are proud of their heritage. They value their cultures, histories, and national identities. Wanting to preserve those things is not immoral. It is human.

Human nature also has a darker side, and this is something idealistic politics consistently fails to account for. There are people who enjoy violence, conflict, domination, and cruelty. This does not disappear under communism, socialism, capitalism, or environmentalism. People harm people in every system. This is why the Green Party manifesto struggles when exposed to real-world conditions. Love needs boundaries. Love needs borders. Without them, you cannot protect what you care about.

I understand Zack’s mindset because I used to share it. I was once much closer to where he is now. I believed that compassion alone could override conflict. Life teaches you otherwise. You can offer kindness to someone who wants to harm you, but it will not stop them. You can try to reason with violent extremists, but they will still do harm. Boundaries, enforcement, and structure exist for a reason.

Zack’s critique of the one percent is not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a problem with extreme concentrations of wealth. Too much economic power can distort politics, influence outcomes unfairly, and leave entire communities behind. That is a legitimate concern. However, it also needs realism. Wealth creates opportunities. It creates jobs. It creates investment. It funds innovation. Blaming the one percent alone as if they determine everything is simplistic.

We need everyone pulling their socks up. Those at the bottom, those in the middle, and yes, those at the top. The people at the top do have greater responsibility because of their influence, but that does not absolve anyone else. There are many at the bottom who are not willing to work. There are people who refuse to get off their couch and contribute. When Hannah Spencer won the by election last week in Gorton and Denton, she said you should have a nice life whether you work or not, that sentiment may have sounded kind. In practice it does not encourage people to pursue work, ambition, or purpose. People need motivation. They need aspirations. Doing nothing is not good for mental health. It creates financial strain. It creates social problems. It creates disorder, not fulfilment.

So although there is a spark of truth in the Greens’ criticism of wealth inequality, they are not being honest. They are using the rich as scapegoats, just as the Tories and the right wing will use the poor as scapegoats. It is about nuance and honesty. We need everyone to contribute. We need incentives to work. We need to reward effort. We need to recognise that real-world economics are complex.

One area where Zack has been treated unfairly is his position on drug policy. It was easy political theatre for leaders such as Keir Starmer to attack him on this. However, treating drug use as a public health issue rather than purely a criminal justice one has worked in places such as Portugal, where deaths and harm have been reduced. That does not mean the policy is flawless, but it does mean the idea itself is not reckless. The real problem has been communication. Without clarity, opponents fill the narrative with caricature and exaggeration.

One thing I can reveal from my private conversations with Zack is this. When he first joined the Greens, he expected the party to be organised, structured, and properly funded. It was none of these things. Zack, along with others around him, has had to build much of it from the ground up. That is not easy. I commend him for the huge achievements he has made. Yet it explains some of the compromises, the messaging confusion, and the reliance on activist energy over strategic clarity.

The deeper issue is that the Green Party is not yet suitable for the wider public unless it changes course. It needs a vision that clearly supports a two-state solution, meaning being pro-Palestinian and pro-Zionist. It needs to communicate far better. And it needs to abandon the fantasy of a borderless world. That idea actively pushes large parts of the electorate away, often straight into the arms of Reform. Ironically, the Greens claim to offer hope, but that hope is conditional. It is not extended to anyone who disagrees with them.

Having spent time closer to the centre ground of politics, I have learned that real progress comes from inclusion. You bring people in. You persuade. You build coalitions. The Greens do very little of this. They accuse the right of being divisive, yet they are deeply divisive themselves. Anyone who does not fully align is treated as suspect.

This is where the confusion and hypocrisy on the left becomes impossible to ignore. The same activists who loudly condemned violence by ICE were silent when the IRGC carried out similar abuses in Iran. They were silent when Christians were slaughtered in Nigeria. They are reluctant to criticise Muslim-majority groups because they fear upsetting a demographic they see as politically valuable. Sometimes leadership requires honesty. Sometimes it requires saying we were wrong. The left rarely does this because it believes it is morally right by default.

That is the deeper problem with Green Party politics. The intentions are good. The motivations are sincere. But there is a movement within it that controls the narrative, punishes dissent, and replaces reflection with certainty. Over time, that corrodes credibility.

I still believe people have the wrong idea about Zack Polanski. He is not dangerous. He is not hateful. He is a kind person trying to do what he thinks is right. But kindness without limits becomes appeasement. Compassion without structure becomes chaos. And love without boundaries cannot survive contact with reality.

Understanding that does not make you cynical. It means you have grown up.