Banned: Omar, Tlaib, Geller, and Me
Should a country ban people who oppose its policies from entering?
The vehemently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have been banned from entering Israel, and Leftists are furious. Surely Israel, and its ally in the Oval Office, have made a major blunder, no? Not necessarily.
Rep. Justin Amash fumed: “Israel should stand up to President Trump and allow our colleagues to visit. Nobody has to agree with their opinions, but it will inevitably harm U.S.-Israel relations if members of Congress are banned from the country. We must find ways to come together; there’s enough division.”
Sure, but would Omar and Tlaib touring around Israel, providing grist for the mill of the Palestinian propaganda jihad and calling for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) measures against the Jewish state really help us “come together”?
After all, they were banned due to “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS.” And there is certainly no doubt that they would have promoted the genuinely neo-Nazi BDS movement while in Israel. Is Israel, or any other state, really obligated to allow entry to anyone who is its implacable foe, dedicated to its ultimate destruction?
Rep. David Cicilline think so. “This is a grave mistake by the Israeli government,” he thundered. “Democracy is about accepting that others don’t always share your views and respecting the right to disagree.” Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren also cast aspersions on Israeli democracy, tut-tutting that “Israel doesn't advance its case as a tolerant democracy or unwavering US ally by barring elected members of Congress from visiting because of their political views.”
Did Cicilline, Warren, or anyone else question Britain’s commitment to democracy when the British Home Office banned Pamela Geller and me from entering that country? Of course not. Have they ever questioned the ever-lengthening line of foes of jihad terror that Britain has banned? Not at all.
When Geller and I were banned from Britain in 2013, I received an official letter from the British Home Office, notifying me that I would not be allowed to enter the country on the grounds that “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.” The letter to me said:
You are reported to have stated the following:
[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.
I said no such thing, of course. I generally speak and write in coherent English. But the point is clear enough. I certainly have pointed out that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. This is not really a controversial point to anyone who has studied Islam at all. No one who is honest can actually deny that Islam has doctrines of warfare against unbelievers.
But the British government is committed to ignoring and denying that Islam teaches violence, and so I was banned. This was a parallel act to the present-day banning of Tlaib and Omar from entering Israel, isn’t it? I opposed the British government, and so was banned, and they oppose the Israeli government, and so they were banned. Thus I can’t consistently support the banning of Tlaib and Omar without endorsing my own banning from Britain, right?
Wrong. Here is the difference: Tlaib and Omar support a movement that is trying to bring about Israel’s destruction. They have both surrounded themselves with individuals who have advocated and are working toward that destruction. Israel is under no obligation to welcome its enemies, any more than any other country is.
In contrast, Pamela Geller I opposed the mass Muslim migration that is destroying the British national character and the willful ignorance regarding the motivating ideology behind the jihad terror threat that has made all British citizens more vulnerable than they used to be or need to be. Geller and I wanted to work toward the protection and defense of Britain, not its destruction.
The British government did not and does not see it that way. As far as it is concerned, Pamela Geller and I are potentially threatening to its continued peace and harmony, just as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are to the peace and harmony of Israel.
But the truth cannot be suppressed forever, and can be discovered in this case by a simple pair of hypotheticals. Imagine if both the British government and the Israeli government continue on the paths they’re on: the British continuing to ignore the genuine root causes of jihad terror and turning the other way as Muslim rape gangs operate, and the Israelis continuing to fight back against BDS and Palestinian propaganda. Which state is likely to be healthier in five years, or ten?
The answer is clear in both cases. Britain has chosen the path of national suicide, banning its friends and admitting all too many of its foes (numerous jihadis have been admitted into the country with no questions asked). Israel, by contrast, is determined to survive. Without the will to live, what will become of Britain?