Why Israel barred Swedish MEPs Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin

Israel announced on August 23, 2026, that it would bar Swedish Left Party members of the European Parliament Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin from entering the country. The two had planned an overnight arrival in Israel before traveling to visit the Palestinian Authority. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar asked Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority to deny them entry under the country’s Entry into Israel Law. 12

They were barred before arrival—not documented as detained at a border

The available reporting describes a pre-arrival exclusion order. It does not identify a specific airport, checkpoint, or border crossing where the lawmakers were physically stopped, nor does it establish that they were detained or turned around after landing. The reported action was an instruction to prevent their entry before the planned trip. 123

That distinction is important. “Barred from entering” can describe an administrative decision made before travel, while “turned away at the border” implies a documented encounter at a particular port of entry. The sources provided support the first description, not the second.

Israel’s legal basis and stated reasons

Israel cited the Entry into Israel Law. Reporting on the law says it allows foreign nationals to be denied entry in circumstances including publicly calling for a boycott of Israel, denying the Holocaust or the October 7, 2023 attacks, or publicly supporting legal proceedings against Israeli citizens in foreign courts. 15

The Foreign Ministry said Sjöstedt and Gedin had acted against Israel “consistently” in recent years. It specifically pointed to support for advancing international legal proceedings against Israelis and to statements it characterized as false accusations—including claims that Israel was committing genocide, intentionally starving civilians, and deliberately attacking children and medical personnel. Those descriptions are the Israeli government’s stated allegations and should not be presented as judicial findings. 23

What the lawmakers and their party have advocated

The supplied record documents a strongly critical position toward Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. Sjöstedt and Gedin jointly raised questions in the European Parliament about what they described as an Israeli disinformation campaign concerning UNRWA. 19

The Swedish Left Party’s published policy calls for:

• an end to what it describes as Israel’s unlawful occupation;
• an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza;
• stronger EU sanctions and economic pressure on Israel;
• an arms embargo and an end to military cooperation; and
• investigations and accountability for alleged war crimes.

The party also states that it supports a two-state solution based on Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, with a Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel. That position supports Israel’s continued existence as one of two states, while demanding accountability under international law.

The party’s published response to the October 7 attacks condemns Hamas’s attacks on civilians as brutal and unprecedented. The available sources support describing the lawmakers’ politics as sharply critical of the Israeli government and its military and territorial policies; they do not, by themselves, establish a rejection of Israel’s existence.

Their connection to the May 2026 Gaza-access appeal

Sjöstedt and Gedin were among European Parliament members associated with a May 7, 2026, letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas. The letter urged greater political pressure on Israel to allow independent foreign journalists access to Gaza.

That request helps explain why the planned visit was politically sensitive: it formed part of a broader effort by European lawmakers to scrutinize conditions and reporting access in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. It does not, however, prove that the entry decision was made because of that letter specifically.

Why the incident matters

The case places Israel’s entry-control powers at the intersection of immigration policy, foreign criticism, and access to the Palestinian territories. Israel frames the exclusion as a lawful response to conduct it considers hostile, including boycott advocacy and support for legal action against Israelis. 12

Critics are likely to view the decision differently because the travelers were elected European representatives seeking to engage with Palestinian institutions rather than private visitors. The episode also comes amid reporting about entry restrictions affecting foreign journalists and activists involved in work or advocacy connected to the West Bank and Gaza. 7913

The evidence supports a cautious conclusion: Israel is using entry restrictions to limit access for some foreign critics and observers, while the government presents those restrictions as security or anti-boycott measures. Whether that practice represents a broader policy trend requires more systematic evidence than this single case, but its practical effect can be less independent outside access to the territories and fewer opportunities for direct verification.