Jewish Greens Chair Signals Possible Exit as Party Backs Motion Branding Zionism Racist

The chair of Jewish Greens, Vivien Lichtenstein, has said she may abandon the Green Party of England and Wales after its members voted to adopt a controversial motion that labels Zionism a form of racism, deepening an internal row that has exposed sharp divisions among the party's senior figures.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Lichtenstein said her departure was "quite possible" but that she had not yet made a final decision. She indicated she wanted time to consult colleagues before determining her next step, describing the situation as one she was still weighing carefully.

The motion, which was brought forward by a group of activists at the party's autumn conference in Brighton, was approved by a margin of 1,022 votes to 813. The Green Party has roughly 230,000 members in total, meaning only a small fraction of the membership took part in the ballot at conference.

Beyond its definition 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". That territory would encompass modern-day Israel.

The text characterises Zionism as an ideology backing "an ethnonationalist Jewish state", language that has drawn condemnation from several Jewish organisations. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council jointly criticised the motion, arguing that "Zionism is anti-racism, creating a refuge for Jews in their ancient homeland after millennia of persecution outside it".

Lichtenstein said she had opposed the motion from the moment she first learned of it, arguing it would do nothing to ease the suffering of Palestinians. She pointed to the devastation in Gaza, including children left orphaned, and to Palestinians in the West Bank who she said are currently being attacked and killed, insisting the motion offered them no practical benefit.

She also framed her objection in terms of definitions, explaining that she regards herself as "both Zionist and anti-Zionist" depending on how the term is understood. According to Lichtenstein, one core problem with the motion is that Zionism carries many competing definitions, making a blanket classification both imprecise and damaging.

She said she was not troubled by accusations that supporting Israel's right to exist makes her a racist, which she said is plainly untrue. However, she argued the "very bad motion" crosses a line, in part because its proposers claimed to have consulted some Jewish people while failing to consult Jewish Greens, who she said could have proposed amendments to improve the wording.

Lichtenstein described a "vast range" of opinion within Jewish Greens itself, noting that some members back the motion entirely, others support only parts of it, and still others oppose it outright. She added that some Jewish Greens also favour a single-state outcome, illustrating that the community is far from monolithic on the question.

She further noted that existing party policy holds that Israelis and Palestinians should decide their own future, whether that takes the form of one state or two. The United Kingdom and eleven allied nations support a two-state solution, which would recognise a Palestinian state alongside Israel, while Israel itself rejects that framework.

A central worry for Lichtenstein is that the Green Party could end up accusing British, Israeli or Jewish organisations — including groups that work in partnership with Palestinians — of racism. She expressed support for many of those organisations, saying they work against the occupation and even operate on the ground to assist Palestinians.

She also revealed that she knows non-Jewish members who are planning to leave the party, citing both the belief that the motion crosses a line and concerns about their professional lives. Some, she said, fear being associated with a party that has adopted "Zionism is racism" as official policy.

Asked whether antisemitism exists within the party, including at senior levels, Lichtenstein said there are "certainly some antisemites in the party", though she added that she had not personally experienced it at senior level. Her remarks stopped short of endorsing claims that prejudice reaches the top ranks of the leadership.

Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, had pushed for the motion to be amended — seeking added protections for Jewish members and the removal of the reference to a "single democratic Palestinian State". Both proposed changes were voted down by conference delegates.

Polanski did not remain at the conference for the votes 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, a contest that has added a further political dimension to the dispute.

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

After the vote, Lubna Speitan, the Green member who brought the motion, defended its intent. She said its supporters wanted to voice opposition to "racist systems of oppression", adding: "We stand united against all forms of racism and discrimination — no exemptions."

The vote laid bare a split not only among the membership but within the party's leadership. On Friday, co-deputy leader Rachel Millward told the Today programme the motion was "problematic", while her counterpart Mothin Ali said on Saturday that he would support the motion in its original form.

The episode leaves the Green Party confronting difficult questions about its internal cohesion, its relationship with Jewish members and organisations, and how its foreign policy positions are perceived beyond Westminster. For Lichtenstein, the coming days and conversations with colleagues will determine whether she remains part of the party she has helped lead.