Jewish Greens Chair Signals Possible Exit After Party Backs 'Zionism Is Racism' Motion

The chair of Jewish Greens, Vivien Lichtenstein, has indicated she may resign from the Green Party of England and Wales following a contentious conference vote that formally labelled Zionism a form of racism. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Lichtenstein said her departure was "quite possible" though she has not yet made a final decision. She explained she is taking time to consult with colleagues before determining her next steps, describing the situation as one that requires careful consideration.

The motion, which was approved by party members at the Autumn Conference in Brighton, has generated significant internal division and drawn sharp criticism from various Jewish organisations. It passed with 1,022 votes in favour to 813 against, a margin that reflects the deep disagreements within the party over its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The policy also endorses the creation of a single democratic Palestinian state across all of historic Palestine, a territory that encompasses modern-day Israel.

Lichtenstein, a former chair of her local party branch, expressed that she had opposed the motion from the moment she first learned of it. She argued it would not benefit Palestinians in Gaza who have endured devastation, nor those in the West Bank who continue to face attacks and killings. Her criticism centred on the practical ineffectiveness of the measure rather than solely on its symbolic implications.

The adopted motion includes several key provisions. It defines Zionism as an ideology supporting an "ethnonationalist Jewish state" and backs a single democratic Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Additionally, it calls for equal rights for all inhabitants and supports the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants. These positions represent a significant shift in the party's official stance on the Middle East conflict.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council issued a joint criticism of the motion, asserting that Zionism is fundamentally anti-racist and that it created a refuge for Jews in their ancient homeland following millennia of persecution. Their statement directly challenges the framing adopted by Green Party members, highlighting the profound disagreement over how to characterise the movement for a Jewish homeland.

Israel's foreign ministry responded to the vote by announcing it had banned party leader Zack Polanski, who is himself Jewish, from entering the country. This diplomatic response underscores the international ramifications of the party's decision and signals how the motion has been received beyond British shores.

Lichtenstein described herself as both Zionist and anti-Zionist depending on how the terms are defined, suggesting that one of the motion's core problems is the lack of agreement on definitions. She clarified she was not worried about accusations that supporting Israel's right to exist makes her racist, but maintained the motion "crosses a line" in several ways. One particular concern involved the motion's proposers claiming they had consulted Jewish members while failing to engage with Jewish Greens, who could have offered amendments to improve the text.

Within Jewish Greens, Lichtenstein noted a wide spectrum of opinion. Some members fully support the motion, others agree with certain aspects, and some oppose it entirely. She also pointed out that some Jewish Greens advocate for a single state solution. This diversity of views within the Jewish membership illustrates the complexity of the debate and challenges any assumption of uniform Jewish opinion on the matter.

The party's existing policy holds that Israelis and Palestinians should determine their own future, whether through a one-state or two-state solution. The UK government and eleven allied nations support a two-state solution that would recognise a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The Israeli government has rejected this approach, making the Green Party's new position a departure from mainstream British diplomatic policy.

Lichtenstein's primary concern with the motion centres on the possibility that the Green Party might accuse British, Israeli, or Jewish organisations of racism, including groups that partner with Palestinians. She expressed support for many of these organisations that work against the occupation and provide assistance to Palestinians on the ground. She also revealed that some non-Jewish members are considering leaving the party because they believe the motion crosses a line and fear professional consequences from association with a party that officially considers Zionism racist.

When asked about antisemitism within the party, Lichtenstein acknowledged that "there are certainly some antisemites in the party" but said she had no knowledge of such attitudes at senior levels. This measured response provides insight into her assessment of the party's internal culture while avoiding sweeping accusations against its leadership.

Party leader Zack Polanski had sought to modify the motion before the vote. He proposed amendments that would have added protections for Jewish members and removed language referring to a "single democratic Palestinian State." Both amendments were rejected by members. Polanski did not remain at the conference to participate in either the amendment votes or the final vote on the substantive motion. He left early to campaign in Holborn and St Pancras, where he is contesting a by-election for a parliamentary seat.

Lubna Speitan, the Green member who brought the motion forward, defended it after the vote by stating that supporters wanted to express opposition to "racist systems of oppression." She emphasised that the party stands united against all forms of racism and discrimination without exemptions. Her comments suggest the motion's backers view it as consistent with broader anti-racist principles rather than targeting Jewish people specifically.

The Green Party's parliamentary representatives largely opposed the motion, though the leadership itself was divided. Co-deputy leader Rachel Millward described the motion as "problematic" during a Friday interview on the Today programme. Her counterpart Mothin Ali took a different position, telling the BBC on Saturday that he would support the motion in its original form. This split within the leadership reflects the broader tensions the issue has created throughout the party's ranks.

A Green Party spokeswoman sought to reassure Jewish members, insisting the party would protect them and that they would not face persecution for attending synagogues that define themselves as Zionist. This commitment attempts to address concerns that the motion could create a hostile environment for Jewish members who hold Zionist views or belong to Zionist-affiliated religious institutions.

The vote adds to a growing debate within British political parties about how to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and where the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism should be drawn. The Green Party's decision places it outside the mainstream consensus on this question and may have lasting consequences for its electoral prospects and internal cohesion. With 230,000 members overall and not everyone attending the conference, the vote represents the views of a committed activist base rather than the entire membership.