Jewish Greens Chair Signals Possible Exit as Party Backs Motion Labeling Zionism as Racism

The chair of the Jewish Greens has indicated she may resign from the party following a contentious vote at the Green Party of England and Wales conference, where members approved a motion describing Zionism as a form of racism. Vivien Lichtenstein told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that her departure was "quite possible," though she has not yet made a final decision. She said she intends to take some time to consult with colleagues before determining her next steps.

The motion, which was debated at the party's autumn conference in Brighton, was carried by a margin of 1,022 votes to 813. It was introduced by a group of activists and has sharply divided senior figures within the party. The total membership of the Green Party stands at approximately 230,000, meaning that only a small fraction of members participated in the vote at the conference.

Beyond its characterization of Zionism, the motion also expresses support for "the establishment of 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." This proposed territory would encompass modern-day Israel. The motion further defines Zionism as an ideology backing "an ethnonationalist Jewish state."

The policy has drawn criticism from several Jewish organizations and from Israel's foreign ministry. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council issued a joint statement opposing the motion, arguing that "Zionism is anti-racism, creating a refuge for Jews in their ancient homeland after millennia of persecution outside it."

Lichtenstein, who previously chaired her local party branch, said she had opposed the motion from the moment she first learned of it. In her interview, she questioned its practical value, stating that it would not improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, who have endured devastation and left orphans behind, nor for those in the West Bank who she said are currently suffering and being attacked.

When asked directly about her future in the party, Lichtenstein replied that she had not decided yet but that it was "quite possible" she would leave. She added that she was giving the matter time and would discuss it with colleagues before making any final choice.

Lichtenstein described her own relationship with the term Zionism as complex, explaining that she defines herself as both Zionist and anti-Zionist depending on which definition is applied. She said one of the problems with the motion is that many different definitions of Zionism exist, making it difficult to apply a single label. She said she was not worried about being accused of supporting Israel's right to exist and therefore being labeled a racist, which she said is not the case, but she maintained that the motion itself is "very bad" and "crosses a line."

One specific concern she raised was the consultation process. She said the proposers claimed to have consulted some Jewish people but did not consult the Jewish Greens, who she believes could have offered amendments to improve the motion. She also noted that opinions within Jewish Greens are highly diverse, with some members supporting the motion entirely, others backing certain aspects, and some opposing it altogether. Some Jewish Greens also support the idea of a single state, she added.

Lichtenstein pointed out that existing party policy holds that it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to determine their own future, whether that means one state or two. This contrasts with the position of the UK government and 11 allies, which support a two-state solution recognizing a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one. Israel rejects the two-state solution.

Her broader worry is that the Green Party may end up accusing UK, Israeli, or Jewish organizations, including those that partner with Palestinians, of racism. She expressed support for many of these groups, saying they work against the occupation and even go out on the ground to assist Palestinians. She also revealed that she knows non-Jewish members who are planning to leave the party because they believe the motion crosses a line, and because their professional work might be jeopardized by association with a party that has adopted "Zionism is racism" as official policy.

Asked whether she believed antisemites exist within the party, including at senior levels, Lichtenstein said there are "certainly some antisemites in the party," though she could not speak to senior levels, saying that has not been her experience.

The party's leader, Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, had sought to amend the motion to include protections for Jewish members and to remove the language calling for a "single democratic Palestinian State." Both amendments were defeated. Polanski did not remain at the conference to vote on either the amendments or the substantive motion. He left early to campaign in Holborn and St Pancras, where he is standing in a by-election for a seat in Parliament.

In response to the motion's passage, Israel's foreign ministry announced it had banned Polanski from entering the country. A Green Party spokeswoman insisted that the party would protect Jewish members and that they would not be persecuted for attending synagogues that define themselves as Zionist.

Following the vote, Lubna Speitan, the Green member who brought the motion forward, argued that its supporters wanted to express opposition to "racist systems of oppression." She added, "We stand united against all forms of racism and discrimination — no exemptions."

The majority of the party's MPs opposed the motion, though the leadership was divided. In a Friday interview on the Today programme, co-deputy leader Rachel Millward described the motion as "problematic." Her counterpart, Mothin Ali, told the BBC on Saturday that he would support the motion in its original form. The divisions highlight ongoing tensions within the Green Party over its stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the vote exposing deep rifts among members and raising questions about the party's ability to retain Jewish members and maintain a unified front on Middle East policy.