When borders speak louder than David Lammy’s words

Sometimes, government figures, especially those from the left side of the political spectrum, seem to forget that borders are a bit like doors—open to the right people, closed to the wrong ones. The recent uproar over Israel denying entry to two British Labour MPs has once again highlighted the disparity between what socialist politicians claim to uphold and how they actually act when confronted with inconvenient realities.

On Saturday April 5, Labour MPs Yuan Yang and Abtisam Mohamed arrived in Israel to allegedly observe humanitarian projects in Judea and Samaria. Their mission was officially linked to Medical Aid for Palestinians, an NGO. Yet, upon arrival at Ben Gurion International Airport, Israeli authorities detained the MPs and swiftly deported them, citing their ties to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as the primary reason for their expulsion.

The MPs—who represent constituencies in Earley and Sheffield Central—were vocal in their disappointment, arguing that their visit was purely humanitarian. They claimed their goal was to examine and document the conditions on the ground in Judea and Samaria. However, Israeli authorities were unconvinced by their assurances, citing concerns that their presence was part of a broader strategy to delegitimize the Israeli state by aligning themselves with a movement whose aims are directly antagonistic to Israel’s existence. According to a statement from the Israeli immigration ministry, they were suspected of plans to “document the activities of security forces and spread anti-Israel hatred.”

David Lammy, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, was quick to jump into the fray, expressing outrage at Israel’s actions. He described the deportation as “unacceptable, counterproductive, and deeply concerning,” asserting that such treatment of British parliamentarians weakened the relationship between the UK and Israel. Lammy emphasized that MPs should be free to visit any country, especially in a region as politically sensitive as the Middle East, without fear of being turned away. Lammy’s statement, unsurprisingly, sparked a political firestorm, with critics accusing him of prioritizing political symbolism over the serious implications of what the MPs’ ties to the BDS movement represent.

What is most striking about Lammy’s response is the contradiction between his words and his record. While calling for Israel to be more tolerant of foreign opposing voices, Lammy has repeatedly endorsed policies that limit the free expression of ideas when they clash with his government views. For instance, Lammy has been a vocal supporter of domestic laws restricting free speech within the UK, even endorsing the jailing of individuals who incite political dissent or, vaguely, Islamophobia. This raises a critical question: How does Lammy justify his opposition to Israel’s sovereignty over its borders while simultaneously supporting policies that restrict the movement of individuals he deems as fostering hate within his own country?

It’s important to note that Israel’s border controls are not about arbitrary discrimination—they are about protecting national security and preserving the country’s legitimacy. The BDS movement, which Yang and Mohamed have been associated with, seeks to economically and politically isolate Israel. The goal of BDS is clear: delegitimize Israel as a sovereign state. Israel, much like any other nation, has the right to protect its borders and refuse entry to individuals or groups advocating for policies aimed at undermining its existence.

In his own country, Lammy has expressed support for the restriction of speech deemed dangerous or inflammatory. He has previously argued in favor of prosecuting individuals who make statements that could be seen as inciting hatred or division. This is exactly what Israel is doing with the BDS movement—it is refusing entry to those who support an agenda that seeks to delegitimize and isolate the state of Israel. If Lammy truly believes in the importance of national security and the need to defend a state from foreign pressure, then it’s hard to understand why he would criticize Israel for implementing the same type of protective measure he advocates for in the UK.

Israel’s decision to bar Yang and Mohamed from entry is rooted in a very simple and clear principle: the right of a nation to defend itself. Every country has the right to safeguard its borders from individuals or groups that pose a threat to its existence. The BDS movement is an existential threat to Israel, and its supporters are rightly scrutinized at borders. This isn’t about silencing dissent; this is about preserving the legitimacy and security of a nation facing existential challenges from external forces.

Lammy, on the other hand, has chosen to stand against Israel’s legal and sovereign right to make decisions about its own security. His condemnation is not just misplaced, but it is hypocritical. By attacking Israel’s actions, Lammy has inadvertently sided with those who seek to delegitimize the state of Israel and deny its right to self-preservation. In doing so, he undercuts his own credibility as a defender of freedom and sovereignty.

In the end, what Lammy and his allies miss is the broader context. Israel is not acting in a vacuum. It is not a country with unchecked power and influence. It is a democratic state that is repeatedly threatened by forces that seek to obliterate it. The decision to refuse entry to MPs associated with BDS is not an attack on free speech; it is an act of self-defense. And Lammy, in his rush to criticize Israel, is missing the point entirely.

If Lammy truly believes in the right to defend borders, he might want to start by applying the same logic to Israel as he does to his own country. After all, borders are only useful when they protect what you stand for.