The IHRA definition is clear? It has one failing: it defines nothing. It is hesitant and wishy-washy in its essence, deliberately so: by defining nothing it can include everything. Its appended examples explicitly drag criticism of the Israeli State into the sphere of anti-Semitism. Sam (above) is right. A proper definition would state simply: "Abstract, irrational hatred of Jews because they are Jews is racism." Nothing else is required. Lucas is an educated woman. She wrote a doctoral thesis on English literature. She was not motivated by a genuine belief that the IHRA definition is clear, but by cowardice. She fears the Israeli lobby will come after her like it came after Corbyn, she is in terror of being labelled anti-Semitic, she knows the Israeli lobby is utterly dishonest and capable of the most egregious viciousness, she knows they set out to destroy Corbyn and the media backed them, she knows thousands of members were suspended and expelled from Labour on false pretences, she knows if she refuses the IHRA definition the followers of Herzl will come after her and her party and they will be torn apart, because the media will ensure the truth is never told. She has acted out of sheer cowardice. This is the moment when she has been tested and she has failed. She has shown herself to be no better than the liars and manipulators in Labour who sought to destroy their own party rather than admit that Israel is a racist State. What price a Green party which is willing to roll over before the B o D and the rest of the pro-Israel establishment which treats the Palestinians as less than human? What price a Green party which can't even defend the equal worth of every human life? Lucas has joined the ranks of the political careerists. She has set her own career and the well-being of her party before the lives of some of the most persecuted people on the planet. Shame. While she is leader, the Greens are not worth voting for.