Last week, an interfaith delegation from the United States was barred from boarding a flight to Israel due to their public support of boycotting the country. The group was clearly upset, especially Rabbi Alissa Wise who accused the country of discriminating against her for her political beliefs, and reflected that she and her fellow delegation members were “the first victims.” This has subsequently resulted in a heated public debate that has been blazing throughout Israel and diaspora Jewry ever since.

At a first glance, it may seem like it is anti-democratic to ban or boycott supporters from entering the country because it is an attack on their right to free speech. Let me be clear, I support free speech. I firmly believe that free speech should be fought for, valued and protected, but alongside that, every democratic value has its boundaries and when free speech is more than just speech, but also an action, taken against a country or a people, we must ask ourselves if it is still legitimate. A great example of how this debate has manifested itself in other countries can be found in the case of David Irving. Irving, a known Holocaust denier, was denied a visa to enter Australia on multiple occasions because his speech included spewing hate, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denial which were deemed outside the boundaries of legitimate free speech. Canada, Italy, and Germany felt the same way. Our case is no different. The BDS movement spreads lies, rejects the existence of the State of Israel (a modern form of anti-Semitism) and has even been known to support terror and encourage violence. So even if we minimize the actions of the BDS to “speech,” it seems that it is well within Israel’s rights to bar them from entering the country. To provide some perspective, Israel has also limited the rights of extremists on the Right when needed, such as when the Kach party was banned from participating in the election.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


If this were any other case, I would probably argue that this type of action is a mistake because we should debate those we disagree with, not silence them. But with BDS the case is different. An organization whose ultimate goal is destroying the State of Israel has no basis for debate. After all, the BDS movement’s leaders have never been satisfied with the two state solution or any other solution that is acceptable to Israel. They simply do not believe in the concept of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. In fact, the major leader of the BDS movement, Marwan Barghouti, has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people even within the 1967 borders. We should accept criticism and value it as an important element of keeping Israel strong, as is the case with every country, but we must also be able to see the difference between criticism and concrete threats.

Many contend that there is a danger in barring boycott supporters today because it may lead to us tomorrow limiting more rights in more ways for more people. There are two central problems with this argument. The first is that contrary to what Rabbi Wise may have claimed in her recent op-ed, she, in fact, was not barred “due to her political beliefs,” but rather because of her actions, and in every democracy, actions have consequences. Rabbi Wise and her supporters were banned for taking action against Israel, by publicly supporting a movement that rejects the very existence of Israel. The second problem with this “slippery slope” type of argument is that one could use the same argument to make the opposite point, more convincingly. If Israel was to give into public pressure and allow in people who are actively trying to destroy it, that could be the start of a slippery slope that would end with us waking one day having no Israel, no Jewish homeland, and yet again, no ways or means of defending ourselves against the many threats that exist today.

In light of all this, I see no problem with barring boycott activists from entering Israel. Not because I am anti-democratic, but because I want to protect Israel’s vibrant democracy. I cherish my right to speak freely and know that it shouldn’t be distorted and used as a weapon against the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. I also know that we must have true debates with real partners on these important issues and that is why we must not waste our time appeasing those who don’t even attempt to find common ground.


The Author Can be Contacted at: [email protected]
Follow him on Facebook: @YehudaLeibler and on Twitter: @Yleibler




Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share