The Frustrating Double Standard of the Tlaib-Omar Affair
In the short time that Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar have been in office, they have repeatedly sparked controversy for making contentious anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements. They openly support a movement to harm the State of Israel and scheduled a ‘trip to Palestine’ that was designed to advance that anti-Israel cause as well. If the roles were reversed, and antagonistic politicians wished to visit the United States to further a malicious campaign against it, would the United States grant them entry?
Israel’s parliament passed a law in 2017 declaring that anyone who supports boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) against Israel will in turn be denied entry to the country they seek to harm. Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are not the first politicians to be denied entry to Israel under this policy. Elected officials from democratic countries like France and Spain have been turned away due to their BDS support for years, as have BDS-supporting activists from the United States and other countries.
Israel is also not the only democratic nation that has barred entry to foreign politicians of friendly governments. The Tlaib-Omar affair was preceded by the United States banning a controversial Israeli politician in 2009 and 2012 during the Obama years. Israel’s Parliament Speaker angrily declared that the rejection was “an assault on the Knesset as a whole.” The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, India, Turkey and many other democratic governments have denied entry to elected officials of friendly governments for various reasons. Japan denied entry to the Malaysian opposition leader in 2014, with Japan’s Foreign Minister stating:
“Every nation has a sovereign right to deny a person entry into the country if the immigration authorities deemed the person undesirable. In such cases, there is no obligation to explain why they (immigration authorities) are exercising this right.”
When Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar announced their intention to organize an alternative trip to Israel-Palestine than the AIPAC-sponsored trip that the rest of the freshmen congressional class was going on, the news sparked an intense debate in Israel: should Israel bar the BDS-supporting Congresswomen, as it would politicians from any other country? Or should Israel make an exception to its anti-BDS law and allow them to visit, despite knowing that the trip would almost certainly be used as an opportunity to promote the anti-Israel movement? The Israeli government chose to make an exception and grant the Congresswomen entry out of respect for the special relationship enjoyed by the United States and Israel. At the time, that was the correct decision.
While an agenda that focused primarily on the many important issues to Palestinians was to be expected, there was also a reasonable expectation that the freshmen Congresswomen would engage with some of their counterparts in the Israeli parliament and learn about important issues in Israeli society, as is customary when foreign dignitaries visit a country in an official capacity. It was only when Israel received the Congresswomen’s official itinerary a few days before their scheduled trip that Israeli officials questioned whether they had erred in granting the Congresswomen special permission to enter.
There were no listed meetings with Israeli parliament members of any political affiliation and the only two Israeli civil society organizations included were those most critical of Israel. (Congresswoman Omar later claimed to have arranged some meetings with Israeli government and security officials prior to the start of the trip, but those did not feature on the itinerary).
Miftah, the Palestinian organization sponsoring the trip, steadfastly supports the boycott against Israel and has posted articles celebrating Palestinian suicide bombers and spreading an inexcusable, anti-Semitic blood libel. It was evident from the itinerary that the courtesy extended to the two Congresswomen out of respect for the special U.S.-Israel relationship was not being reciprocated. Israeli authorities reversed their decision and announced that entry to the Congresswomen would be barred. They explained that Israel would not grant a BDS-exemption for the Congresswomen’s visit which was clearly not in good faith and was designed to promote the boycott campaign against Israel. Some analysts seem to believe that it was President Trump who pushed Israel over the edge in reversing its decision; whether the reversal would have happened without his tweets is unknown.
I have written at length in opposition to Israel’s anti-BDS law and firmly believe in giving critics the chance to visit Israel and change their minds. Yet, whether one agrees or disagrees with Israel’s ultimate decision to bar the Congresswomen, it cannot be said that the decision lacked justification. The Congresswomen go beyond free speech and persistently use their words and actions to advance the BDS movement against Israel. According to the itinerary that they submitted, they intended to use an official state visit to snub their allied hosts and empower Israel’s critics and detractors. Democratic countries around the world, including the United States, have barred foreign politicians for far less.
The political fallout from this situation is upsetting to all of us who care about a strong U.S.-Israel relationship as well as the welfare of both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel was always going to suffer a political cost no matter what decision it took because the Congresswomen came with the intention to undermine. My sincere hope, however, is that Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib will get a chance to reschedule their trip to Israel-Palestine on terms that will be more agreeable to both parties and that Congresswoman Tlaib will get to visit her grandmother soon.
But to answer my earlier question: yes, the United States would almost certainly have banned them as well if the roles were reversed. The indignant outrage about Israel’s decision in this situation is nothing short of hypocritical.
