I generally agree with Haaretz columnist and Tel Aviv University Prof. Carlo Strenger, who supports democracy and freedoms for all individuals in Israel and the Palestinian territories, often opting to prioritize these values above and beyond any political motives aimed toward the peace process.
And, in this vain, I agree one hundred percent with Strenger’s latest column that the Israeli border guards should not have barred world renown scholar Noam Chomsky from entering the West Bank to give a lecture at Bir Zeit University due to his political views, which are very critical of Israel.
However, Strenger continues, accusing Israel of a anti-democratic policies. He writes:
“I have never heard of a democratic state denying entry to thinkers (or anybody else for that matter) who neither call for violence or break local or international law. So what on earth is happening to Israel? … If Israel feels it can defend its actions morally and politically, it should not fear thinkers who criticize it. But Israel is beginning to tamper with free speech, and this is a truly worrying development.”
Strenger would be one hundred percent correct, that is, if he had his facts straight.
Yes, the Interior Ministry unilaterally decided to ban Chomsky, likely due to his critical views of Israel (which, by the way, are supportive of a two state solution and not anti-Israel in at least that regard). However, the Interior Ministry violated protocol and Israeli officials said Chomsky should not have been banned.
In fact, one of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s top spokespersons set the record straight on Israeli policy. As spokesperson Mark Regev clearly said:
“There is no change in our policy. The idea that Israel is preventing people from entering whose opinions are critical of the state is ludicrous; it is not happening. This was a mishap. A guy at the border overstepped his authority.”
So. What’s Israel’s policy? Chomsky and other individuals with critical views of Israel are permitted in the country. Period. And for that, Israel is in no way anti-democratic and Strenger’s article, this time, is way out of bounds.
However, as I’ve written before, Israel’s freedom of speech doctrine has some limitations. The Israeli government has issued gag orders regularly on issues published in the rest of the world press, refused entry to a journalist critical of the state, and attempted to intimidate reporters to obtain leaked security information after those policies were published.
In those instances, Israel did violate freedoms of the press and speech, however the Chomsky incident was an unfortunate out-lier that should not be used as fodder against the state. Taken as a whole and accounting for both the Chomsky and Ma’an News incidents, there is no trend yet on Israeli violations.
Instead, there is one incident (Chomsky) that has been condemned by the government and another incident (Ma’an News) that was a clear violation that has not yet been denounced by the Israeli government. These are not a pattern; but if they continue, there may be a concrete case to label Israel as anti-speech.