At Turley’s blog, he writes of Israeli Interior Minister, Aryeh Dery’s, decision not to allow entry to an advocate of the BDS movement.

For the first time, Israel has denied entry to a prominent traveler due to her part advocacy of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. African theologian and academic Isabel Phiri is an assistant general secretary with the World Council of Churches in Geneva. She was refused a visa at Israel’s Ben Gurion airport on Monday afternoon. 

Who?

Phiri was a professor of African theology, and head of the school of religion, philosophy and classics at the University of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa. The WCC represents churches, denominations and church fellowships in more than 110 countries with more than 500 million Christians. That includes a wide array of Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed churches, as well as many United and independent churches. The ministry noted the WCC engaged in pro-Palestinian activities, including observers to Palestinian areas.

The explanation was, by American standards, remarkably clear.

“Granting an entry permit to activists such as Phiri would in effect reinforce the wrongful activities she and her peers are advancing and I have no intention of lending a hand to that. I will use any authority at my disposal to avert harm to Israel.”

[Israel’s public security minister, Gilad] Erdan added that “The place of the boycotters is outside the country’s borders and we shall continue to do everything possible to prevent them from entering our country.” The reference to “boycotters” would cover anyone supporting the BDS.

In other words, people whose purpose it is to attack a country aren’t going to be welcomed as guests. Go figure. It’s not as if Israel’s destruction hasn’t remained a primary goal of the Palestinian Charter. And before anyone raises objections based on “rights,” Israel isn’t the United States, so how we would do things here isn’t relevant. Sovereign nations get to make their own rules, and it’s not unworthy of note that as nations go in the middle east, Israel at least doesn’t stone women to death for being raped.

Before anyone sees this as an opportunity to argue the substance of Israel’s horribleness toward the Palestinians, there is plenty of fair criticism and discussion to be had, just as any nation is, and should be, challenged on its policies and practices. Many, including Jews and Israelis, take issue with Israel’s handling of the Palestinians, and are deeply concerned with the rights of people who seek Israel’s destruction.

But the BDS movement?

Since 2014, there has been a disturbing surge in the number of invited campus speakers being repeatedly interrupted or actually prevented from delivering a public lecture. A startling share of these silencing efforts have been directed at Israelis or other speakers sympathetic to Israel who have run afoul of the growing anti-Israel movement on campuses.

Behind this spike is an idea called “anti-normalization.” This concept, which anti-Israel organizations began vigorously promoting two years ago, holds that any activities that might “normalize” relations between Israelis and Palestinians — from children’s soccer leagues to collaborative environmental projects to university panel discussions with both sides represented — should be summarily rejected because they treat both parties as having legitimate grievances and aspirations. Joint projects are to be shunned unless they begin with the premise that Israel is the guilty party.

There are, no doubt, intelligent and legitimately concerned people involved in BDS. And there are blithering idiots who, as has become “normalized” in so many progressive causes, have subsumed it as a mindless religion, bent only on being destructive about things they lack the capacity to understand.

As anti-normalization spread as a tactic, it acquired a higher status. Advocates of BDS — the campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel — began to grant this “principle” a quasi-theological character, lending its application to campus events an air of moral urgency and ethical superiority. By last year, BDS supporters had a transcendent reason to voice their contempt for academic freedom when they refused to participate in “normalizing” dialogue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to block campus access to speakers deemed sympathetic to Israel.

Turley contends that barring “critics” from entry should be a concern.

For civil libertarians, the move is not just inimical to free speech but inimical to democratic values in Israel. The intolerance for certain political views or non-violent activities would move Israel closer to some of its intolerant Muslim neighbors in the region. Countries like Iran are known for monitoring the views of visitors and barring critics. That is a path that Israel would wisely avoid. The fact is that Israel has a large civil libertarian community as well as a renowned academic community.

While it may well be that Israel is strong enough to withstand criticism, and what distinguishes its virtues, despite the blind hatred of the BDS movement, is its internal civil libertarian beliefs and ability to demonstrate concern for people who seek its destruction, Erdan has a point. BDS advocates can condemn Israel all they want. They just have to do it elsewhere.

Picture this conversation at JFK:

Border Agent: Purpose of your visit?

Prominent Traveler: To stir up hatred against the United States amongst people whose goal in life is to destroy its existence.

Border Agent: Fair enough. Have a nice day.

Part of the problem with the civil libertarian tendency is to characterize this as “intolerance for certain political views or non-violent activities” when addressing a nation that’s been the target of war, bombings and destruction since its inception. While Phiri may well engage in “non-violent activities,” what she and the movement for which she advocates seek is Israel’s destruction.

Is it really surprising that Israel has decided not to welcome her with open arms? Will Israel be just like all the evil Arab countries if it doesn’t facilitate the efforts of those who seek its destruction? Is there really a duty on the part of a country to be complicit in its own suicide?

The BDS movement exists, and can be as critical as it wants, even though its conduct here has demonstrated no respect for civil libertarianism by silencing speakers with which it disagrees. But it has no authority to demand that the country it seeks to destroy treat its advocates as welcome guests.