Green Party Opens Investigation into Member Behind Controversial Zionism Motion

The Green Party has confirmed it has launched an internal investigation into one of its members, Lubna Speitan, following revelations that she was identified in United States court documents as a "close friend" of a man who was subsequently jailed for supporting al-Qaeda. The party stated that its internal processes are designed to examine cases where members have expressed views that conflict with its stated values.

A spokesperson for the Greens said the party has mechanisms in place to investigate such matters and confirmed that a formal investigation is now under way. The spokesperson also clarified that Speitan does not hold any official position within the party beyond her basic membership. The investigation marks a significant escalation in a controversy that has already stirred intense debate within the party and beyond.

Speitan was the driving force behind a contentious motion passed at the Green Party's recent conference, which described Zionism as a form of racism. The motion defined Zionism as an ideology supporting what it called an "ethnonationalist Jewish state". It also advocated for a "single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine". The motion was approved by party members with 1,022 votes in favour and 813 against, a margin that underscored the deep divisions within the party over the issue.

Under Green Party rules, motions that receive member support become official party policy. However, such policies are not automatically guaranteed a place in the party's manifesto for the next general election. This distinction means that while the motion carries symbolic and internal weight, its practical impact on future electoral platforms remains uncertain and subject to further debate.

The motion has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties and several Jewish organisations, which have characterised it as an attack on the Jewish community. The backlash has been particularly pronounced given the Green Party's traditional emphasis on social justice and human rights. Four out of five Green Party MPs opposed the motion, highlighting a significant rift between the party's parliamentary wing and its grassroots membership.

Adrian Ramsay, a former party leader and the Green MP for Waveney Valley, publicly criticised the motion, calling it an "unhelpful distraction" and "wrong in principle". He argued that the Green Party has always championed the right to self-determination, and that this principle must apply to all peoples without exception. His comments reflected a broader concern among senior party figures that the motion could damage the party's reputation and electoral prospects.

When asked whether he would consider leaving the party in light of the controversy, Ramsay told BBC Radio 5 Live that he was "not ruling anything in or out at this stage". He emphasised that his immediate priority was to engage in careful discussions with colleagues, including Jewish Greens, fellow MPs, and others in leadership roles, to determine how best to restore the party's focus and unity.

The investigation into Speitan was triggered by a report in the Jewish Chronicle, which revealed the existence of a 2015 letter in which she offered to testify as a defence witness in the trial of Minh Quang Pham. US prosecutors alleged that Pham had been directed by al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki to detonate explosives in the arrivals area of Heathrow Airport after undergoing several months of training in Yemen. Pham was ultimately sentenced to 40 years in prison in the United States after pleading guilty to supporting al-Qaeda. He denied planning a suicide attack.

In the 2015 court documents, Speitan was described as a "close friend" of Pham who could provide "critical testimony regarding Pham's mental state". In a subsequent letter to the US District Judge, she expressed deep respect and esteem for Pham, stating that if the judge had truly known the man she and others had grown to love and respect, the case might have been dismissed entirely. She acknowledged that he may have developed some behavioural issues but described him as one of the kindest, most honest, sincere, trustworthy, and respectful people she had ever known.

The court documents do not suggest that Speitan was aware of Pham's criminal activities at the time they knew each other. This nuance is important, as it contextualises her willingness to testify on his behalf without implying any knowledge of or involvement in his offences. Nevertheless, the revelation has raised questions about her judgment and associations, particularly given her prominent role in shaping party policy.

In response to the emerging controversy, Speitan posted a statement on Instagram before the Green Party had confirmed its investigation to the BBC. She rejected what she described as "all defamatory and nonsense claims" made about her, and she also rejected attempts to "decontextualise past statements" she had made. She framed the scrutiny as a distraction, insisting that she was not the central issue.

"The conversation is racism, Zionism, the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians," she said, redirecting attention to the broader political issues she has championed. Her remarks appeared designed to shift the focus away from her personal associations and back to the debate over Zionism and Palestinian rights that her motion was intended to address.

The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of heightened international tension over the conflict in Gaza. In June, a United Nations commission of inquiry concluded that Israel had deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Israel has consistently denied that its actions amount to genocide, maintaining that its military operations are justified as measures of self-defence.

Speitan, a British-Palestinian artist, has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights. Her motion at the Green Party conference was a direct expression of that advocacy, but it has also exposed deep fissures within the party. The decision to investigate her suggests that Green Party leadership is seeking to balance its commitment to free expression and internal democracy with the need to uphold its stated values and protect its public image.

The outcome of the investigation remains uncertain, but its implications could be far-reaching. It may influence how the party handles future controversial motions, shape its approach to internal discipline, and affect its standing with voters, particularly within the Jewish community. For now, the Green Party faces the delicate task of addressing the concerns raised while navigating the intense political sensitivities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.