By deporting British MPs, Israel has exposed its brutal border policies to the world
Israel’s advocacy network is in full swing, promoting a massive smear campaign against two British members of parliament who were recently refused entry to Israel.
The sheer level of disinformation, designed to sow confusion and deter serious scrutiny of Israel’s actions, must be roundly challenged.
Labour MPs Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang, who were travelling as part of a parliamentary delegation organised by the Council for Arab-British Understanding and Medical Aid for Palestinians, were denied entry at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport last weekend. Israel’s allegations that they intended to “spread hate speech” or posed any kind of threat to Israeli citizens are utterly false and ludicrous.
A well-coordinated smear campaign swiftly followed, as Israel’s supporters flooded social media with a series of contradictory and nonsensical statements, alongside openly racist and misogynistic commentary. The tidal wave of hatred included threats of violence.
The Israeli narrative on this incident does not add up. According to my sources, the border officers at Ben Gurion had not received any advance directive to detain the two MPs; rather, it was an ad-hoc move subsequently approved by the interior ministry subjecting the MPs to interrogations about their past public and parliamentary commentary on Israel.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Official statements from the Israeli government and its UK embassy, however, suggest that their detention was standard procedure, accusing the two MPs of aiming “to provoke anti-Israel activities at a time when Israel is at war” and “to harm Israel and Israeli citizens and spread falsehoods about them”.
In February, Israel denied entry to two other politicians from the European Parliament, citing recommendations made in adavnce by the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, according to my sources. But there has never has been any such recommendation, at least not publicly, for elected members of the UK parliament.
Opaque justification
Indeed, the chain of events suggests that the frontline Israeli border officers at Ben Gurion Airport had little information or knowledge about Mohamed and Yang until they were detained and their interrogation was underway. Rather, it appears they were profiled by airport staff based initially on their ethnicity and also their desire to witness and document the realities on the ground for Palestinians.
Israel’s allegations against the two MPs, including that they “were actively involved in promoting sanctions against Israeli ministers”, are so broad that they could apply to any of the numerous British parliamentarians who have called to sanction extremist voices in Israel or to ban arms sales. Any, up to and including the foreign secretary himself, could be refused entry under the criteria cited in the case of Mohamed and Yang.
If your political beliefs do not match with the consensus in Israel, you are considered to not have any legitimate place in the country
Despite the Israeli embassy’s assertion that the two MPs could lawfully “petition the court to reconsider the decision”, such an endeavour in Israel’s highly politicised justice system would likely lead nowhere.
In short, if your political beliefs do not match with the consensus in Israel, you are considered to not have any legitimate place in the country.
Israel’s typical justification for such actions is the opaque and highly subjective argument of “security grounds”. Its methodology is essentially a Catch-22, wherein a visitor to Israel is asked to provide a reason for their trip; if they are up front and mention plans to visit the occupied Palestinian territories, they could be denied entry.
On the other hand, if they conceal their intentions or lie, and their true purpose is subsequently determined based on their publicly expressed support for Palestinians, they could face the consequences of allegedly deceiving border officials.
Traumatised and harassed
In March 2017, Israel’s Knesset passed a law barring the issuance of entry visas or residency rights to any foreign citizen who has publicly called to boycott Israel. It subsequently published a blacklist of 20 organisations that would automatically be barred over their support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Israel’s policy of denying entry to those critical of its violations against the Palestinian people has become standard practice, despite its deviation from international norms.
Still, the diplomatic and political row over the two British MPs has seemingly generated more outrage from the UK government than we’ve seen in the entire course of Israel’s wanton slaughter of Palestinians, including the killing of British aid workers, during the last 18 months of atrocity crimes and genocide in Gaza.
Mohamed and Yang have rightly described their treatment by Israeli authorities as astounding and unprecedented. MPs from all parties have come together to condemn Israel’s move, indicating that this incident has damaged Tel Aviv’s reputation in the UK, thus backfiring spectacularly. Its policy of cutting Palestinians off from the world is now in the global spotlight.
Yet, while such high-profile cases generate news headlines and spark debate, little is done to address Israel’s systematic targeting of Palestinians, Arabs and non-Jews. Its use of racial profiling at entry points has been well documented. Ben Gurion Airport’s detention and interrogation rooms are notorious.
In the past, based on personal experience and conversations with dozens of others refused entry, visitors have been coerced to surrender and unlock their mobile devices, allowing their personal data to be scoured. Some foreign nationals have been asked to sign statements written in Hebrew, including prepared confessions and denial-of-entry orders.
This type of behaviour occurs at all of Israel’s entry points, including the land border connecting the occupied West Bank to Jordan. Palestinian travellers are routinely traumatised, and international travellers harassed. These severe curbs on freedom of movement should be a topic of serious discussion.
As someone who has personally been refused entry and banned from future travel to Israel, none of this comes as a surprise. I agree with left-wing Knesset members who say the latest incident should be a wake-up call for the UK to see Israel’s racist, extremist government for what it is.
In light of all this, what we really need to be talking about now is the fact that Israel has total discretionary authority to decide which foreign nationals can enter and have access to the occupied Palestinian territory.
We need to expose how Israel’s immigration and entry policies serve as part of a wider agenda designed to weaken the sociocultural, economic, and humanitarian ties between Palestinians and the rest of the world.
All of this is contrary to the obligations Israel has under international law to facilitate entry of foreign nationals to the Occupied Palestinian Territory except under the most urgent reasons of imminent security considerations on a case by case basis.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
