The Green Party’s recent conference motion declaring Zionism a form of racism has ignited a firestorm, not only because of its political content but also after it emerged that the member who proposed it, Lubna Speitan, was named in US court documents as a “close friend” of Minh Quang Pham – a British‑Vietnamese national jailed for 40 years in the United States for supporting al‑Qaeda and allegedly plotting a suicide attack at Heathrow Airport. Speitan’s motion, which passed on Sunday and calls for a single democratic Palestinian state covering all of historic Palestine, prompted Israel to bar Green leader Zack Polanski from entering the country and drew sharp criticism from Jewish groups, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. Inside the party, the vote has exposed deep fissures, prompting resignations and a public plea from Polanski to keep the organisation open to all faiths and communities.
The Motion and Its Passage
Lubna Speitan, a British‑Palestinian artist and Green Party member, submitted a motion that defined Zionism as an ideology backing “an ethnonationalist Jewish state”. The text urged the party to advocate for “a single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine”, a formulation that implicitly rejects the existence of Israel as a Jewish‑majority nation. Delegates voted in favour on Sunday, making the stance official party policy. Speitan explained that supporters of the motion sought to challenge “racist systems of oppression” and to give voice to Palestinian aspirations for self‑determination.
Court Documents Reveal Personal Ties
While the motion was being debated, records from a 2015 US court case resurfaced showing that Speitan had offered to testify as a defence witness for Minh Quang Pham. Pham, who had lived in London before his arrest at Heathrow in July 2011, was later extradited to the United States and pleaded guilty to three counts of providing material support to al‑Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). He received a 40‑year sentence in 2016. In the filings, Speitan was described as a “close friend” of Pham whose testimony would be “critical” for establishing his mental state and potentially influencing the verdict. The documents noted that a medical condition prevented her from appearing in person, but she later wrote to the presiding judge describing Pham as “one of the kindest, honest, most sincere, trustworthy and respectful people I have ever known”. She added that, had the judge truly known the man others admired, “they may have probably had the whole case dismissed”. Speitan acknowledged Pham may have developed behavioural issues but insisted his core character remained admirable. The filings contain no suggestion that she was aware of his extremist activities at the time of their friendship.
Reactions from Israel and Jewish Groups
The passage of the motion prompted an immediate diplomatic response from Israel, which announced that Green Party leader Zack Polanski would be denied entry to the country. Israeli officials characterised the stance as an affront to the nation’s right to exist. Jewish organisations in the United Kingdom labelled the vote an “attack” on their community, while several Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs reported the party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, arguing that the motion crossed the line into antisemitic rhetoric. Speitan’s letter to the judge, first highlighted by the Jewish Chronicle, has been cited by critics as evidence of her personal sympathy for someone convicted of terrorism‑related offences.
Internal Party Fallout
The vote has intensified existing tensions within the Green Party. Deputy leader for Wales, Phil Davies, resigned and cancelled his membership, describing the motion as “the final nail in the coffin”. Other councillors have also stepped down, citing concerns that the stance alienates potential allies and undermines the party’s broader environmental agenda. Party leader Zack Polanski issued a lengthy statement on Monday night, insisting that he would “not accept anyone being excluded from the party because of the religious or communal body they are part of”. He stressed that “antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state are, and must always be, completely distinct”. A Green Party spokesperson said that where members express views inconsistent with core values, internal processes exist to investigate, but stopped short of commenting on Speitan’s specific case.
Why it Matters
The controversy illustrates how a single policy proposal can reverberate far beyond its original subject, exposing fault lines between freedom of speech, communal sensitivities and national security concerns. By linking a domestic political motion to an individual with terrorism convictions, the episode raises questions about the vetting of party representatives and the potential impact of personal associations on public perception of political organisations. For the Green Party, the episode tests its ability to balance activist passion with electoral credibility, while for British Jews and Israeli officials it underscores anxieties about rising antisemitism disguised as political critique. The fallout may shape future debates on how progressive movements navigate the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict without alienating key constituencies or compromising their broader platforms.
