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

The chair of the Jewish Greens has indicated she may resign from the Green Party of England and Wales following a contentious conference vote that labelled Zionism a form of racism. Vivien Lichtenstein told the BBC it was "quite possible" she would depart the party, describing the decision as a significant personal crossroads.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Lichtenstein said she had not yet made a final decision. "I haven't decided yet," she explained, adding that she was allowing herself time to consult with colleagues before determining her next step. Her remarks came after party members endorsed the policy motion by a margin of 1,022 votes to 813 during the autumn conference in Brighton.

The motion, advanced by a group of activists, supports the creation of a "single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine," a territory that encompasses modern-day Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital. It also calls for equal rights for all inhabitants and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants. Furthermore, the text defines Zionism as an ideology backing an "ethnonationalist Jewish state."

Lichtenstein, a former chair of her local party branch, stated she had opposed the motion from the moment she first learned of it. She argued it would do nothing to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank. "It doesn't make any difference whatsoever to Palestinians in Gaza who have suffered devastation, orphans left behind," she said, adding that it similarly fails to help those in the West Bank "who are currently suffering, are currently being attacked and killed."

Her concerns extend beyond the humanitarian impact to the internal dynamics of the party. She described the motion as "very bad" and said it "crosses a line," partly because its proposers claimed to have consulted Jewish members but failed to engage with the Jewish Greens, who could have offered amendments to improve the text. She noted that the Jewish Greens encompass a "vast range" of opinions, with some members fully supporting the motion, others backing specific aspects, and some opposing it entirely.

The vote has exposed divisions within the party's senior ranks. Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, had pushed for amendments to include protections for Jewish members and to remove the reference to a "single democratic Palestinian State." Both proposed changes were defeated. Polanski did not remain at the conference for the final vote, having left early to campaign in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, where he is seeking to become an MP.

The leadership's stance was also fragmented. Co-deputy leader Rachel Millward labelled the motion "problematic" during a Friday appearance on the Today programme. In contrast, her counterpart Mothin Ali told the BBC on Saturday that he would support the motion in its original form. The majority of the party's MPs opposed the motion, underscoring the gap between the parliamentary wing and the activist base that drove the proposal.

External reaction was swift. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council issued a critical statement, asserting that "Zionism is anti-racism, creating a refuge for Jews in their ancient homeland after millennia of persecution outside it." Israel's foreign ministry also condemned the motion and announced it had banned Polanski from entering the country.

Lichtenstein, who describes herself as "both Zionist and anti-Zionist" depending on the definition applied, said one of the motion's flaws is that it fails to account for the multiplicity of definitions surrounding Zionism. She stressed she was not troubled by accusations that supporting Israel's right to exist makes her a racist, stating, "which of course is not the case." Nevertheless, she reiterated that the "very bad motion...crosses a line."

She also expressed concern that the Green Party might end up accusing British, Israeli, or Jewish organisations—including those that partner with Palestinians—of racism. She voiced support for many of these groups, noting they work "against the occupation and even go out on the ground to assist Palestinians." Her worry is that the new policy could place such organisations and individuals in an untenable position.

The potential fallout extends beyond Lichtenstein herself. She revealed that she knows non-Jewish members who are planning to leave the party because "they think the motion crosses a line" and because their professional work might become incompatible with association with a party that formally holds "Zionism is racism" as policy.

When asked whether antisemitism exists within the party, including at senior levels, Lichtenstein said: "There are certainly some antisemites in the party, I don't know about at senior level, that is not my experience." Her comment suggests a distinction between isolated prejudice among the membership and systemic bias within the leadership.

A Green spokeswoman insisted the party would protect Jewish members and that they would not be persecuted for attending synagogues that define themselves as Zionist. The assurance sought to counter fears that the motion could lead to the marginalisation of Jewish members who identify with Zionist ideology.

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

The motion also endorses a position at odds with the UK government's official stance. The UK and 11 allies support a two-state solution, which would recognise a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one. Israel rejects a two-state solution. Lichtenstein noted that Green Party policy has historically held that "it's up to Israelis and Palestinians to choose their future—one state or two."

With 230,000 members overall, the Green Party's conference vote does not necessarily reflect the views of the entire membership, as not all attend the gathering. Nonetheless, the decision has ignited a fierce debate over the party's direction, its relationship with Jewish communities, and the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For Lichtenstein, the outcome may prove decisive.