Hold on to your hats, this is going to be a wild one.
Which are the “usual suspects”? They are the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway. What do they have in common? They are busybodies, far removed from the Middle East, yet somehow convinced they possess superior insight into managing security challenges in a region they observe from thousands of miles away.
Who are the heroes of the piece? They are Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. These men have the audacity to believe that Israeli citizens deserve protection from violence, a principle one might assume would be universally accepted.
What, then, is the complaint of the former against the latter? They are accused of “... inciting violence against Palestinians in their campaign to gain control of new settlements in the West Bank.” This characterization, however, deserves scrutiny.
What are the sanctions to be imposed on these two Israeli leaders by these outside agitators? Travel bans and the seizure of any assets owned by the two men located in any and all of these five countries. Apparently, defending your citizens has become a sanctionable offense in certain quarters of the international community.
A minor linguistic and historical difficulty
First things first: The proper characterization of the areas under consideration is not the “West Bank.” Rather, it is Judea and Samaria – names with three millennia of historical precedent. But why, oh why, would these supposedly nasty Israelis want to use violence against the peace-loving Palestinians located in this area of contention?
The reason is straightforward, if uncomfortable for some to acknowledge. Those pacifistic Palestinians have for a considerable period of time been throwing rocks at Israelis (which, contrary to popular belief, can be lethal), shooting them, stabbing them, running them over with vehicles, and employing various other methods to make Israeli lives ones of violence, misery, and fright. Finally, finally, Israeli officials are saying “Enough is enough” and are defending their citizens against these unwarranted depredations, under the leadership of these two Israeli ministers.
Evidently, the politicians in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway do not much favor self-defense – at least not when exercised by Israelis. Either that or they have been sadly misinformed about the facts on the ground. A third possibility: Perhaps they simply apply different standards to Israeli security concerns than they would to their own.
A glimmer of sanity
Happily, however, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for the end of these misguided sanctions and declared that his country stood “shoulder to shoulder” with Israel. At least someone in the international community understands the actual dynamics at play. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised retaliatory measures against this gang of five, and one can hardly blame him.
What form should these responses take? Banning tourists from these five countries from visiting the Holy Land would be unwarranted. Their citizenry bears no responsibility for this diplomatic overreach. But at the very least, what was done to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich should be imposed on the politicians responsible for this patently unfair course of action. Let’s see how Prime Ministers Keir Starmer (UK), Anthony Albanese (Australia), Mark Carney (Canada), Christopher Luxon (New Zealand), and Jonas Gahr Støre (Norway) appreciate being told they cannot travel or that their assets are frozen.
The broader implications
What are the ramifications of this precedent? Will prominent leaders soon find themselves unable to visit allied nations because their policies displease foreign governments? Will the five sanctioning prime ministers perhaps be precluded from setting foot in Argentina, given President Javier Milei’s fervent support of Israel? Is this any way to run a railroad or, more precisely, to conduct international relations?
No, decidedly not. Diplomacy requires discussion, understanding, even heated debate when necessary. To refuse engagement with democratically elected politicians, to “cut them dead,” to sanction them because their security policies differ from your preferences – this leads not to a peaceful world. It represents the first step toward national enmity and the breakdown of the international order.
A strategic consideration
Here is an interesting point, not entirely tangential to the issue at hand. The Israeli military ranks fourth globally in capability. None of the sanctioning countries surpass that level. So, a word of advice to our sanctioning friends: Consider carefully whom you are sanctioning. Israel has faced existential threats since 1948 and has survived them all. A few travel bans from distant nations are hardly going to alter Israeli security calculations.
The fundamental question is this: Do these five nations genuinely want to establish a precedent whereby democratically elected officials are sanctioned for protecting their citizens? Because if that becomes the new international standard, the list of travel-restricted politicians will grow quite lengthy indeed.
The international community would do well to remember that true peace comes not from sanctioning those who defend against violence but from addressing the violence itself. Until that lesson is learned, we can expect more of these misguided diplomatic theatrics from the usual suspects.■