Green Party Opens Investigation Into Member Behind Controversial Zionism Motion

The Green Party has confirmed it has launched an internal investigation into one of its members, Lubna Speitan, following revelations that she was described in United States court documents as a "close friend" of a man who was later imprisoned for supporting al-Qaeda. The development places further pressure on the party just days after a bitterly divisive conference vote that has exposed deep rifts within its ranks.

Speitan was the figure behind a motion passed at the party's conference that characterised Zionism as a form of racism. The motion, which also advocated for a single democratic Palestinian state across all of historic Palestine, was approved by members by a margin of 1,022 votes to 813, but it has sparked intense criticism from opposition parties, Jewish organisations and even several of the party's own parliamentarians.

A spokesperson for the Green Party said: "Where members have expressed views that do not fit in with the party's values, we have internal processes to investigate and an investigation is underway." The party has stressed that Speitan holds no formal position within the organisation beyond ordinary membership.

The controversy deepened after the Jewish Chronicle reported the existence of a 2015 letter in which Speitan offered to testify as a defence witness in the trial of Minh Quang Pham. According to US prosecutors, Pham had been directed by al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki to detonate explosives in the arrivals area of Heathrow Airport after undergoing several months of training in Yemen. Pham, who denied planning a suicide attack, ultimately pleaded guilty to supporting al-Qaeda and was sentenced to 40 years in prison in the United States.

In the 2015 court documents, Speitan was identified as a "close friend" who could provide what was described as "critical testimony regarding Pham's mental state". In a subsequent letter addressed to the US District Judge overseeing the case, she expressed profound admiration for Pham, describing him as one of the "few people I regard with such high respect and esteem".

She went further, suggesting that if the judge had "truly knew the Minh [Pham] that I and others grew to love and respect", the case might have been "probably had the whole case dismissed". While she acknowledged that Pham "may have had and developed some behavioural issues", she also characterised him as "one of the kindest, honest, most sincere, trustworthy and respectful people I have ever known". Importantly, the court documents contain no suggestion that Speitan was aware of Pham's criminal activities at the time of their acquaintance.

Before the Green Party publicly confirmed its investigation, Speitan issued a defiant statement on Instagram. "I reject all defamatory and nonsense claims made about me," she wrote, adding that she also rejected "all attempts to decontextualise past statements I have made". She framed the scrutiny as a diversion, stating: "This is a classic distraction. I am not the conversation." She then redirected attention to broader issues, saying: "Racism is. Zionism is. The ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians is. Let's talk about that."

Her comments reference a June finding by a United Nations commission of inquiry, which concluded that Israel had deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Israel has consistently rejected such allegations, maintaining that its military actions in Gaza are justified as acts of self-defence and denying that they amount to genocide.

The fallout from the conference motion has been considerable. It drew condemnation from rival political parties and a number of Jewish groups, who described it as an "attack on the Jewish community". Notably, four out of five Green Party MPs opposed the motion, underscoring the internal discord it has generated. Adrian Ramsay, a former party leader and the Green MP for Waveney Valley, publicly criticised the motion as an "unhelpful distraction" and "wrong in principle". He argued that "the Green Party has always supported the right to self-determination and that has to apply to all peoples".

When asked during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live whether he might consider leaving the party over the issue, Ramsay said he was "not ruling anything in or out at this stage". He emphasised that his immediate focus was on "talking carefully with colleagues to reflect both with Jewish Greens but also with Green MPs and other people in leading roles in the party to look at how best can we get things back on track".

Under the Green Party's rules, motions that secure the support of members at conference become official party policy. However, this does not guarantee that they will be included in the party's manifesto for the next general election, leaving some ambiguity about the practical implications of the vote.

Speitan, a British-Palestinian artist, proposed the motion that defined Zionism as an ideology supporting "an ethnonationalist Jewish state". The passing of the motion has ignited a wider debate about the party's direction and its stance on Middle Eastern politics, with critics arguing that it alienates Jewish members and voters.

The investigation into Speitan adds another layer of complexity to an already fraught situation for the Greens. It raises questions about how the party vetting and internal disciplinary processes function, and whether the leadership can successfully manage the competing pressures from its activist base, its parliamentary representatives and the broader public. As the party seeks to present itself as a credible alternative at the ballot box, the ongoing controversy threatens to overshadow its policy agenda and deepen internal divisions.

For now, the Green Party faces the delicate task of conducting a thorough investigation while attempting to heal the wounds opened by a conference motion that has proven far more consequential than its supporters may have anticipated. The outcome of the inquiry, and the party's handling of its aftermath, is likely to shape the Greens' public image and internal cohesion for some time to come.