They already caved about a year ago if I recall, partly adopting the IHRA definition of a/s under pressure from the usual suspects. Here's their woeful 'guidance' document (I gave up bolding the worst parts because really I'd have to do it to the whole thing):

*****

https://members.greenparty.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-08/Antisemitism-a-guidance%20070821.pdf

2. The IHRA definition is considered the gold standard definition of antisemitism by most Jewish institutions. Organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is the official representative of British Jews to the government, and the Union of Jewish Students, which is the official representative of Jewish students, as well as the British Government itself, use this definition and encourage other organisations and governments to do likewise.6 According to the MacPherson principle for defining racism, that ‘a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’, the IHRA definition should clearly be a preeminent source for understanding antisemitism.7 Applying this principle to Jews means that allegations of antisemitism should always be taken seriously and investigated sensitively.

This definition, an update on the 2004-5 European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) definition of antisemitism, was produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA).8 This organisation is a confederation of 34 member countries including the UK, the US, and most of the EU. The IHRA has a broad mission which encompasses holocaust education, museums, memorials, and definitions of antisemitism. The definition itself was written by an international working group of academics with expertise on antisemitism.

It is important to note that this working definition should be regarded as a helpful set of guidelines to help identify and understand antisemitism, rather than a strict and comprehensive legal code setting out every example of antisemitism.9 The document’s structure includes a brief definition followed by a series of examples that provide practical guides for identifying antisemitism. As the document acknowledges, these should be used ‘taking into account overall context’.

For illustration, in reference to the example ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self- determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’ Possible contexts where this could be antisemitic include:

● Attempting to conceptually deny Jewish self-determination (or in less academic terms arguing that Jews shouldn’t have political rights or freedom of religion) is clearly antisemitic. However, it would not be antisemitic to criticise particular strategies for ensuring those rights, for example ethno-nationalism. An argument that as ‘Israel is a racist endeavour’, Jews don’t deserve civil rights would be antisemitic.
● It is likely to be antisemitic to claim that Israel bears an outsized responsibility for racism outside of Israel, disproportionate to any reasonable assessment of Israeli political power. This would be applying the antisemitic idea that Jews have disproportionate power to Israel.
● It likely to be antisemitic to argue that Israel is a racist endeavour because Jews are intrinsically more racist than white Christians.

However, arguments that racism is foundational to modern statehood, and that Israel is an example of this, would not be antisemitic. It is also not antisemitic to argue that racism has played a significant role in Israeli life and politics since its founding, as long as similar patterns in other countries i.e Britain, the US, Australia are also identified. As the IHRA definition confirms ‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic’. This clause also depends on context. For example, if someone has a particular personal connection to racism in Israel, they might have a better understanding of racism specifically in Israel, that does not extend to racism globally.

The reason the IHRA includes references to Israel is because anti-Israel discourse is important in understanding contemporary antisemitism. This appears in discourse relating to Israel, either by targeting Israel itself as a proxy for Jews or by repeating old antisemitic slanders with ‘Israel’ or ‘Zionist’ swapped for the word ‘Jew’. Incidents relating to Israel are often controversial and require clear examples. The IHRA definition is a helpful guide which should be read in conjunction with other writing on antisemitism, to gain a fuller understanding of all aspects of antisemitism. Further reading is listed in the bibliography.

Another common critique of the definition is that it is interpreted in a way to limit legitimate criticisms of Israel. The ways that other organisations choose to interpret, or misinterpret the definition should not be considered relevant to the Green Party’s own, internal decision making. (pp.4-5)