The transgender Green Party Council member describes herself as a “proud anti Zionist trans woman,” has called for Israel to be abolished, attacked a supposed “Zionist lobby” and “feral Zionist press,” and praised the “Iranian resistance” for humiliating the “Great Satan.” Her language contains striking parallels with rhetoric used by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other anti Israel movements.
A new extremist voice inside the Green Party
Eleanora Ní Chualáin celebrated her election to Britain’s Green Party Council with an unusually explicit declaration of what she believed the result represented.
“Our party has changed, and my election as a proud anti Zionist trans woman symbolises that change,” she wrote in an election statement reproduced by multiple outlets.
Ní Chualáin is a transgender woman who has also published under the names Eleanora Sophie Folan and Ell Folan. She pledged to “defend freedom of speech regarding Israel” and support Green members when they are “attacked and smeared by the feral Zionist press.” What she is actually doing is trying to normalize terrorist rhetoric.
“I know there will be Zionists reading this who are utterly furious that I won,” she added. “I welcome their hatred.”
But her rhetoric goes considerably further than criticism of an Israeli government or its policies.
Ní Chualáin has reportedly called for Israel itself to be “abolished,” described the country as a “bloodthirsty Zionist entity,” accused a “Zionist lobby” and its “servile allies in Downing Street” of manufacturing an antisemitism controversy, and praised what she called the “Iranian resistance” for humiliating the “Great Satan.”
Those expressions have histories of their own.
“Zionist entity” appears verbatim in Hamas’s 2017 political document and Hezbollah’s 1985 Open Letter. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly called for the elimination of the “Zionist regime.” And “Great Satan” is one of the defining political epithets of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, popularized by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and used by Iranian leaders for decades.
The issue is not simply that Ní Chualáin opposes Zionism. It is the particular political vocabulary she has chosen to express that opposition.
Who is Eleanora Ní Chualáin?
Ní Chualáin is best known through Stats for Lefties, the political polling and election analysis platform she founded.
Writing under the name Ell Folan, she has contributed polling analysis to Novara Media and written for the left wing publication Bright Green.
Her own writing describes a political journey between the Greens and Labour. In 2023, Folan described herself as a democratic socialist and said she had left the Greens in 2016 to join Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn. After six years in Labour, she concluded that Corbynism had failed and rejoined the Green Party in January 2023.
In May 2024, she stood as a Green candidate for Norwich City Council in Lakenham ward, receiving 452 votes and finishing second.
In August 2026, she was elected to the Green Party Council representing the East of England.
The Council forms part of the party’s national governing structure and shares collective responsibilities involving governance, political strategy and interim policy. Ní Chualáin is one member of that body, not a party leader or individual policymaker.
But she presented her victory as evidence of a wider ideological transformation inside the Greens.
“Our party has changed,” she declared.
“Abolish Israel”
The clearest expression of Ní Chualáin’s position is also the simplest: she has reportedly called for Israel to be abolished.
In May 2026, the Jewish Chronicle quoted her describing allegations of an antisemitism crisis surrounding the Green Party as an “entirely constructed moral panic.”
She reportedly wrote that it was “invented by the Zionist lobby and their servile allies in Downing Street and the rabid dogs of the press,” with the purpose of crushing political movements that challenge Israel.
“It’s a scam,” she wrote, according to the newspaper.
She concluded: “Anyway, victory to the Iranian nation, free Palestine from imperial colonisers, and abolish Israel.”
That is fundamentally different from criticizing Israel’s government, settlements, military operations or treatment of Palestinians.
It envisages a political future in which the existing State of Israel no longer exists.
Ní Chualáin was also listed among supporters of Green Party Motion A105, titled “Zionism is Racism.” The proposal calls for “a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, equal rights for all, and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants.”
It also affirms a Palestinian right to “resistance and liberation” and describes struggle “by all available means under international law” as legitimate.
The motion was not adopted at the Green Party’s Spring Conference and is not Green Party policy. It also explicitly calls for equal rights and rejects treating Jewish identity as synonymous with Zionism.
But the political outcome it proposes is clear: Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state and would be replaced by a single Palestinian state across the territory.
“The Zionist entity”
Ní Chualáin’s description of Israel as the “bloodthirsty Zionist entity” has a particularly notable textual history.
Hamas’s 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies states:
“There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity.”
Hezbollah’s 1985 Open Letter likewise repeatedly refers to the “Zionist entity.” In a translation published by Israel’s International Institute for Counter Terrorism, the document declares that Hezbollah’s struggle would end only when that entity was “obliterated.”
Palestinian Islamic Jihad uses closely related terminology, including the “Zionist project,” while Iran generally refers to Israel as the “Zionist regime.”
The phrase is not exclusive to terrorist organizations. It has a much longer history in Arab politics and has been used by governments, diplomats and nonviolent opponents of Zionism.
But its political purpose is generally clear: referring to Israel as an “entity” rather than a country or state rejects its legitimacy and permanence.
That becomes more significant when Ní Chualáin combines the terminology with an explicit call to “abolish Israel.”
“The Great Satan”
Her use of “Great Satan” is much more distinctive.
Ní Chualáin reportedly wrote:
“Glory to the Iranian resistance, whose courageous fight against the imperialist dogs of the USA has utterly humiliated the Great Satan.”
She continued by expressing hope that Iran would “fully repel US imperialism,” that Palestine would be freed from the “bloodthirsty Zionist entity” and that Israel would be abolished.
“Great Satan” is not ordinary Western anti imperialist terminology.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini popularized the expression for the United States following Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. It became one of the Islamic Republic’s defining political epithets.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was still using it decades later. In September 2015, he called America the “Great Satan” while predicting that there would be nothing called the “Zionist regime” within 25 years.
The expression remained in Iranian leadership messaging in 2026.
Iran’s revolutionary vocabulary has also influenced the political ecosystem surrounding what Tehran calls the “Resistance Front,” widely known as the “Axis of Resistance.”
That network has included or supported armed movements such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The Houthis offer an especially extreme example of this ideological vocabulary. Their slogan includes “Death to America, Death to Israel” and “Curse upon the Jews.”
Nothing attributed to Ní Chualáin resembles that slogan, and it would be wrong to equate the two.
What is noteworthy is her combination of several expressions in one passage: praise for the “Iranian resistance,” denunciation of the “imperialist dogs of the USA,” celebration of the humiliation of the “Great Satan,” description of Israel as the “bloodthirsty Zionist entity,” and a prediction that Israel will be abolished.
Taken together, the language closely resembles the political register of Iran’s revolutionary worldview and the wider rhetoric of movements aligned with its confrontation against Israel and the United States.
Different ideologies, a shared endpoint
The disappearance of Israel is also a recurring political objective across otherwise very different movements.
Hamas’s 1988 Covenant declared that Israel would continue to exist “until Islam will obliterate it.”
Its 2017 political document changed important elements of that earlier rhetoric, including explicitly distinguishing its struggle against Zionism from a struggle against Jews. But it continued to reject Israel’s legitimacy and recognition while retaining armed resistance as a strategic choice.
Hezbollah’s 1985 Open Letter said its struggle would end only when the Israeli “entity” was “obliterated.”
Palestinian Islamic Jihad has consistently rejected Israel’s legitimacy. Reuters has described the organization as advocating Israel’s eradication.
Iran’s leadership has repeatedly called for elimination of the “Zionist regime.”
Iranian officials have also promoted a political alternative: a single democratic state across the territory, established through a referendum involving its original Muslim, Jewish and Christian inhabitants.
That bears a striking conceptual resemblance to Motion A105’s proposal for “a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine.”
There is also a secular revolutionary precedent. The Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine wrote in 1969 that its objective was “to destroy the state of Israel” and replace it with a democratic state.
These movements have profoundly different ideologies and methods.
The common denominator relevant to Ní Chualáin’s statements is narrower: the desired political endpoint is a future in which the State of Israel as presently constituted no longer exists.
Why this matters to Israelis and Jews
For Israelis, “abolish Israel” is not an abstract academic argument about nationalism.
Israel is the country in which millions of people live and the national home of roughly half the world’s Jewish population.
Someone can condemn Benjamin Netanyahu, oppose the Gaza war, campaign against settlements, support Palestinian statehood or demand sweeping changes to Israeli policy without calling for the country itself to disappear.
The demand to abolish Israel crosses that line.
The historical context also matters.
Political Zionism developed partly in response to repeated persecution and the failure of European societies to guarantee Jewish security. The Holocaust subsequently gave Jewish sovereignty an existential significance for much of the Jewish world.
That history does not settle the Israeli Palestinian conflict or invalidate Palestinian national claims.
But it helps explain why rhetoric about eliminating Israel is received by many Israelis and Jews very differently from criticism of Israeli policy.
The “Zionist lobby” and the press
There is another aspect of Ní Chualáin’s rhetoric that raises a different concern.
According to the Jewish Chronicle, she claimed the antisemitism controversy was invented by a “Zionist lobby” working through “servile allies in Downing Street and the rabid dogs of the press.”
Months later, she separately promised to defend Green members against what she called the “feral Zionist press.”
Conspiracy theories alleging that Jews exercise hidden influence over governments and media have been a recurring feature of modern antisemitism.
The IHRA working definition identifies myths about Jewish control of “the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” among examples of antisemitism.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which is substantially more protective of anti Zionist political speech, also identifies conspiracy theories about Jews controlling governments and media as classic antisemitism.
Ní Chualáin said “Zionist lobby,” not “Jews.” That distinction matters.
She has also explicitly rejected accusations that her statements express hostility toward Jewish people.
“It is important to emphasise that none of these comments express hatred towards Jewish people in any way whatsoever,” she said in response to the Jewish Chronicle’s reporting.
Her argument is that she is attacking Zionism and Israel as political projects, not Jews.
The Jerusalem Declaration supports an important part of that distinction. It says opposition to Zionism as a form of nationalism and advocacy of a single democratic state with equal rights are not inherently antisemitic.
The more difficult question is what happens when anti Zionism is combined with allegations that a powerful “Zionist lobby” manufactured an entire national controversy through compliant politicians and a hostile press.
Even the Jerusalem Declaration says coded language and conspiracy claims must be assessed in context.
A Green Party changing from within
Ní Chualáin’s election comes amid a wider ideological struggle inside Britain’s Green Party.
She publicly thanked Greens for Palestine for supporting her candidacy.
The Green member network has promoted Motion A105, which would declare the party anti Zionist, support a single Palestinian state throughout historic Palestine and call for Palestine Action to be removed from Britain’s list of proscribed organizations.
The motion also states that “not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews.”
It was not adopted at the party’s Spring Conference, and Green leader Zack Polanski was reported as opposing its description of Zionism as racism.
But Ní Chualáin herself interpreted her election as evidence that the balance inside the party is shifting.
“Our party has changed,” she said.
Her own rhetoric illustrates the direction in which she wants that change to go.
She wants Israel abolished.
She has described it as a “bloodthirsty Zionist entity.”
She has praised the “Iranian resistance” for humiliating the “Great Satan.”
And she has portrayed an antisemitism controversy as a “scam” manufactured by a “Zionist lobby,” its political allies and the press.
Some of those expressions are common across the broader anti Zionist and anti imperialist left. Others have direct textual parallels in the language of Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
And one in particular, “Great Satan,” comes directly from the revolutionary political vocabulary of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
For Israelis and many Jews, that combination is precisely what makes Ní Chualáin’s rise inside the Green Party significant.
This is no longer simply an argument over Israeli government policy.
It is an elected member of a British political party’s national governing structure openly advocating a future without the State of Israel, while using language with unmistakable roots and parallels in some of Israel’s most implacable enemies.
