Jewish Greens Chair Says She May Quit Party After Members Back 'Zionism Is Racism' Motion

The chair of Jewish Greens, Vivien Lichtenstein, has said she may leave the Green Party after its members voted to adopt a motion that declares Zionism a form of racism. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Lichtenstein described her departure as "quite possible", though she stressed that she had not yet made a final decision. She said she was giving herself time to reflect and to consult with colleagues before determining her next step.

The contentious motion was passed at the Green Party of England and Wales conference in Brighton, where activists gathered to debate internal policy. Members endorsed the proposal by a margin of 1,022 votes to 813, a result that underscored deep divisions within the party. While the vote carried the day, it was decided by a fraction of the party's broader membership, which stands at roughly 230,000 people. Not all members attend conference, meaning the policy reflects the will of those present rather than the entire grassroots base.

Beyond its description of Zionism as racism, 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 include modern-day Israel, a position that sharply departs from the two-state framework long favoured by the UK government and its allies. The motion further characterises Zionism as an ideology that backs "an ethnonationalist Jewish state."

Lichtenstein, a former chair of her local party branch, said she had opposed the motion from the moment she first learned of it. In her view, the measure offers no practical benefit to Palestinians enduring hardship in Gaza or the West Bank. She pointed to the devastation in Gaza, including children left orphaned, and to Palestinians in the West Bank who she said are currently suffering and being attacked and killed. For her, the motion changes nothing on the ground for those communities.

The adoption of the motion has drawn criticism from a range of Jewish organisations and from Israel's foreign ministry. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council issued a joint rebuke, arguing that "Zionism is anti-racism, creating a refuge for Jews in their ancient homeland after millennia of persecution outside it." Their statement reflects a widespread view among mainstream Jewish bodies that Zionism, understood as the movement for Jewish self-determination, is rooted in the need for safety rather than in racial superiority.

Lichtenstein explained that she identifies as "both Zionist and anti-Zionist" depending on how the term is defined, and she argued that one of the motion's core flaws is the absence of a single agreed definition. She said she was not troubled by accusations that supporting Israel's right to exist makes her a racist, insisting that such a charge is simply untrue. Nevertheless, she described the motion as "very bad" and said it "crosses a line", a phrase suggesting that her concerns go beyond mere disagreement over wording.

One specific grievance she raised was procedural. According to Lichtenstein, the activists who brought the motion forward claimed to have consulted some Jewish people, but they did not consult Jewish Greens, who she believes could have proposed amendments to improve the text. She noted that Jewish Greens themselves hold a "vast range" of opinions on the issue, with some backing the motion entirely, others supporting parts of it, and still others opposing it outright. Some members of Jewish Greens also favour a single-state outcome, she added.

On the question of party policy, Lichtenstein pointed out that the Greens have historically held the position that "it's up to Israelis and Palestinians to choose their future — one state or two." That stance sits uneasily with a motion that endorses a single state encompassing all of historic Palestine. The UK and 11 allied nations have expressed support for a two-state solution, which would recognise a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel's government, by contrast, rejects a two-state solution.

Lichtenstein also voiced concern that the motion could lead the Green Party to brand British, Israeli, or Jewish organisations — including those that partner with Palestinians — as racist. She expressed support for many of these groups, praising their work "against the occupation" and their efforts on the ground to assist Palestinians. Her worry is that a blanket definition of Zionism as racism could marginalise allies who are actively engaged in humanitarian and political work.

She further revealed that she knows non-Jewish members who are planning to leave the party. In her account, these individuals believe the motion crosses a line, and some also fear professional repercussions if they remain associated with a party that has adopted "Zionism is racism" as official policy. This suggests the fallout may extend beyond Jewish members and could affect the party's broader coalition.

Asked whether antisemitism exists within the Green Party, including at senior levels, Lichtenstein said she is certain "there are certainly some antisemites in the party." However, she added that she has not personally experienced antisemitism at senior levels. Her comments signal that while she sees a problem within the rank and file, she stops short of accusing the leadership of harbouring such prejudice.

The party's leader, Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, had urged members to amend the motion. He sought to add protections for Jewish members and to strip out language endorsing a "single democratic Palestinian State." Both amendments were voted down. Polanski did not remain at conference for 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 standing in a by-election to become an MP.

In a further development, Israel's foreign ministry announced it had banned Polanski from entering the country in response to the motion. 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. The spokeswoman's remarks appear aimed at reassuring members that the policy would not translate into hostility toward Jewish communal life.

After the vote, Lubna Speitan, the Green member who put the motion forward, defended its intent. She said its backers wanted to express opposition to "racist systems of oppression" and declared, "We stand united against all forms of racism and discrimination — no exemptions." Her framing positions the motion as part of a broader anti-racist agenda rather than as a targeted attack on Jewish identity.

The vote exposed a split within the party's leadership. The majority of the Greens' MPs opposed the motion, yet senior figures were divided. On Friday, co-deputy leader Rachel Millward called the motion "problematic" during an interview on the Today programme. Her counterpart, Mothin Ali, told the BBC on Saturday that he would support the motion in its original form. With the policy now adopted, the party faces questions about how it will reconcile internal disagreements and whether the controversy will prompt further departures.