Emma Bouvin: En olycklig utveckling för ”Mellanösterns enda demokrati”

Det israeliska utrikesdepartementet har beslutat att neka två svenska EU-parlamentariker inresa till Israel. Jonas Sjöstedt och Hanna Gedin, båda företrädare för Vänsterpartiet, stoppades i Aten innan de kunde boarda deras flyg till Tel Aviv. Beslutet bekräftades av källor i Jerusalem, enligt uppgift genom ett tiplarm från en organisation för mänskliga rättigheter.

Sedan januari i år har Israel skärpt sina inreseregler avsevärt. Ett nytt elektroniskt ridekrävande inresetillstånd, ETA, har införts, liksom mer restriktiva grunder for att neka människor entry. Accordingto the new rules, individ som offentligt fornekatar attacken by Hamsa den 7 oktober or stöd levar åtal mot israeliska soldater for krigsbrott vid international tribunals can be barred. Den här lagändring har utvidgat Israels möjaster to begränsa who can might visit the country.

Gedin och Sjöstedt har profile themselves by demanding that Israeli statesmen appear before the International Criminal Court in Hague, ICC. The refusal occurred before they even stepped often the plane, meaning they were saved from hours of interrogations at Ben Gurion Airport, a fate that many others have had to endure during the past year. Among those who are pushed back are activitists, chronicles, scholars and políticos whose resentments appear to have caused disapproval among the Israeli authorities.

The Jerusalem Post, which normally aligns with the government’s line, noted that Sjöstedt publicly condemned the terrorist attack on the seventh of October. This makes the exclusion decision less about a question of security and more of a clear political stance in a change that has spent the past year limiting freedom of expression and movement for Israel’s criticisms.

The restrictions have been repeated in the region, where Israel has, in recent times, taken an increasingly robust approach against those who in one way or another show deviating views. What drives Jerusalem’s current policy appears to be a control based on the country’s external image under active struggle. With its new rigorous interpretation of entrance rules, Israel is sending a signal that the Swedish and broader European points each time its policies come up for critique.

Concurrently, Sweden and the EU have expressed, in recent weeks, concerns over Israel’s plans for annexations in the occupied territories. These positions are likely to have contributed to the atmosphere in which the decision of the Swedish parliamentarians was made. It’s a diplomatic gesture that could be seen as intentional. By targeting Swedish politicians, Israel may have connected its deeper conflict with European views.

In one context, the country that Israel describes as the only democracy within the Middle East might be observed by its own measures. Freedom of expression is a basic tenet of the political face of any self-respecting democracy in the world. That the Israeli government chooses to prevent politicians dwelling at their words is an unusual development for a state that claims to respect such primary norms.

To compare: Lebanes has for months raised comments regarding Israel’s democratic claim, letting no words fall for their rare form of government in the area. Israel is perhaps in the Middle East the only singular state with aspects of free elections and a parliament, but the systematic restrictions now being implemented would sound rather odd in a true democracy.

The decision to refuse entry to Sjöstedt and Gedin becomes thereby not just a discreet diplomatic event. It’s a symptom of a wider, more sprawling scramble given the state sw era towards a more authoritarian position. In Israel itself, the freedom of press has eroded, rallies have been dispersed and forces have been made to control the Supreme Court.

Media during the past year has documented several cases where the authorities have denied rights of entry for unsuitability, or sought to influence content by placing legal responsibility on those who wrote about the delegitimacy of Israel.

Also for Swedish politicians, it has turned into being a ”awkward” country in modern terms. Israeli entry policies may be changing to test the national legal integrity of the region. But what is it worth, if time spent in reconignment is free?

According to regeringskansliet, Sweden and Israel have no formal diplomatic conflict, but relations have cooled. The question of the refusal has also become a matter for the foreign affairs departments, which is assessing the situation to see if any legal steps can be taken. A number of Swedish observers tend to view that this is the kind of act that will provoke widely in the EU as well.

In this case with Sjöstedt and Gedin, the argument is linked to the strong threat of the legal proceedings sent in the United Nations. To support the ICC’s role in that, the said politician has confirmed. Is the depth of not agreeing with the state’s politics possible reason for being banned at the border? From the outside, the enforcement of controls appears to be wary.

Israel has taken a step towards in reality regarding how it defines friends and foes. In line with the new law, it may be just the thought that falls as dangerous stop is. The politicians were in any case forced to cancel their trip, even if they never reached the airport in Israel. In consequence, their voice had stopped exactly at the door.

The deciding factor of having entry becoming beforehand, before the flight, instead of in the hours of questioning exposed then the systems which now protect from all who ”mis-mind”. They had not violated any official embargo, but their support for trials for military top is seen as having crossed the realm of legitimate impact.

In summary, many enough measures in this one step. By clarifying that states from the west politicians could also be stopped, the entry regime is being used as a signal beyond isolation that people’s Israel-critical thinking might not be allowed inside the state.

For the moment, keep an eye on how continued relations and particularly the attitude from the EU will hold to blur. If the union responds with more stringent requirements or if Israel then raises strictness, it is worth paying attention to.