Jewish Greens Chair Considers Leaving Party Over Zionism as Racism Motion

The chair of the Jewish Greens, Vivien Lichtenstein, has expressed concern over a recent motion passed by Green Party members that defines Zionism as a form of racism. Lichtenstein told the BBC that she is “quite possible” to leave the party, as the motion has divided senior party figures and contradicts her personal stance. The motion, which was adopted by a vote of 1,022 to 813, calls for a “single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine,” including modern-day Israel. This stance has sparked significant debate within the party and beyond.

Lichtenstein, a former chair of her local party, has consistently opposed the motion since its inception. She argues that the language used does not address the immediate suffering of Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank, where many are currently being attacked and killed. “It doesn’t make any difference whatsoever to Palestinians in Gaza who have suffered devastation, orphans left behind,” she said. The motion, however, defines Zionism as an ideology supporting an “ethnonationalist Jewish state,” a characterization that has drawn criticism from Jewish community leaders.

The Green Party of England and Wales, which has 230,000 members, saw the motion pass despite opposition from some within the party. The motion was proposed by a group of activists at the party’s conference in Brighton, where it was supported by a majority of attendees. However, not all members were present, and the outcome reflects the views of those who participated. The party’s leader, Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, had sought to amend the motion to include protections for Jewish members and remove the language referring to a “single democratic Palestinian State.” Both amendments were defeated, and Polanski left the conference early to campaign in a by-election.

The motion includes a call for the establishment of a “single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital,” along with equal rights for all and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants. This language has been criticized by Jewish organizations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, which argue that Zionism is anti-racism and a refuge for Jews after centuries of persecution. These groups have condemned the motion as misrepresenting the historical and ethical foundations of Zionism.

Lichtenstein, who identifies as both Zionist and anti-Zionist depending on the definition, highlights the ambiguity in the motion’s language. She emphasizes the importance of clear definitions in political discourse, as the current wording risks alienating Jewish members and misrepresenting the complex nature of Zionism. Her concerns reflect a broader tension within the Green Party and the wider political landscape regarding the role of Zionism in contemporary debates.

The debate over Zionism and its relationship to racism continues to shape political and religious discussions globally. As the motion underscores, the language used to describe Zionism can have profound implications for Jewish identity, political movements, and intercommunal relations. The challenge lies in balancing the pursuit of justice for all peoples with the recognition of historical and cultural contexts. As Micah 6:8 reminds us, we are called to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. In navigating these complex issues, clarity and compassion remain essential.

Source: Read the original report