“You did not express concern for that officer's welfare. You did not recognise that serious injury to someone carrying out their lawful duties is, in itself, a matter deserving of reflection or sympathy. That omission matters,” they wrote.
The six activists were on Wednesday cleared of aggravated burglary following a trial over the Elbit raid.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a charge of grievous bodily harm with intent against one of the six.
On the day of the verdicts, Polanski posted on X welcoming the outcome of the trial.
"Pleased to see the jury make this decision,” he wrote.
“We need to have eyes wide open this is exactly why the government wants to abolish juries. People protesting against a genocide are not the criminals here – it’s the politicians who continue to provide cover,” the message to his 156k followers went on. It has since had some 2 million views, according to X.
Polanski also reshared a post with the words “praise be” and another referring to the “heroes” involved.
Two million people have seen Polanski's post according to metrics on the platform (Photo: X)[Missing Credit]
Now police leaders have slammed the Green leader for not referring to the injured officer.
The letter from Lynch, whose police federation represents over 130,000 officers, and Gent, accused Polanski of lacking “basic human decency” and warned that his comments could have wider implications for policing.
“A police officer is assaulted in this country on average every ten minutes,” they said.
“By publicly welcoming the verdicts and framing the protesters as morally justified, while remaining silent on the harm suffered by an officer, your comments risk sending a message, intentional or not, that injury to police officers is an acceptable or incidental consequence of political protest.”
The letter added: “Police officers are not abstractions in a political debate. They are people who go to work knowing they may be assaulted, seriously harmed, or worse, often while policing protests that are emotionally charged and highly confrontational.”
The Federation said police officers were “not responsible for foreign policy, defence contracts or international conflict”, but were tasked with enforcing the law impartially and preventing serious disorder.
“When elected representatives comment on post-trial outcomes without even acknowledging injury to officers, it undermines confidence that their safety is regarded as worthy of concern at all,” the letter said.
“With a public platform as party leader comes a responsibility to recognise harm when it occurs, especially when that harm is suffered by those tasked with keeping others safe.”
The letter called on Polanski to “reflect on that omission and on the signal it sends to those policing future protests”, concluding: “Empathy costs nothing. Its absence can cost lives.”
On Wednesday, the Police Federation also wrote to the director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, raising “serious concerns about the operational and safety implications” of the trial outcome.
In this second letter, the Federation warned about the impact of such cases on “the safety of officers deployed to public order operations” and on public confidence in law enforcement.
The JC approached Zack Polanski for comment.
