Why Israel barred Swedish MEPs Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin

Israel announced that it would bar Swedish Left Party members of the European Parliament Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin from entering the country shortly before they were due to arrive for a planned visit to the Palestinian Authority. The announcement came on August 23, 2026, and said Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar had asked the Population and Immigration Authority to deny them entry under Israel’s Entry into Israel Law. 12

The available reports say the lawmakers were scheduled to arrive overnight through Israel. They do not establish that Sjöstedt and Gedin were physically detained, removed from a plane or stopped at a named airport or border crossing. The documented action was a decision to prevent their entry before the planned visit. 123

What legal basis did Israel cite?

Israel relied on its 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 supporting legal proceedings against Israeli citizens in foreign courts. 15

The Foreign Ministry described Sjöstedt and Gedin as having acted against Israel in recent years. It specifically cited alleged support for advancing international legal proceedings against Israelis, calls for boycotts or sanctions, and statements that Israel said falsely accused it of genocide, deliberately starving civilians, and intentionally attacking children and medical personnel. Those descriptions are the Israeli government’s allegations and should not be treated as independent judicial findings. 236

What were the lawmakers planning to do?

The two MEPs had planned to travel through Israel for an overnight arrival and visit the Palestinian Authority. The reports do not indicate that they were attempting to enter for tourism; their stated itinerary was connected to Palestinian political institutions. 12

Their European Parliament work has included criticism of what they described as Israeli disinformation concerning UNRWA. In a written parliamentary question, both lawmakers asked what action the European Union should take in response to the alleged campaign and how it could prevent such claims from spreading in member states. 19

They were also among the members of the European Parliament associated with a May 7, 2026, appeal urging European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas to press Israel to allow independent foreign journalists access to Gaza. 21 That request is relevant to the dispute because independent access affects the ability of outside observers and journalists to verify conditions on the ground.

How did Sjöstedt frame the disagreement?

The supplied reporting does not include a complete, independently verifiable transcript of Sjöstedt’s response. The central distinction attributed to his position is between criticizing the Israeli government’s policies—including its conduct in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories—and opposing Israel as a state or opposing Israeli people.

That distinction is important to understanding the controversy. Israel characterized the lawmakers’ activity as “anti-Israel,” while their documented political positions show opposition to specific government policies, military actions, occupation and international conduct. Whether those positions meet the legal threshold for exclusion is separate from whether they amount to opposition to Israel’s existence.

What positions do Sjöstedt and Gedin’s party hold?

The Swedish Left Party’s published policy provides context for the views that Israel cited:

• It describes the occupation of Palestinian territory as contrary to international law and calls for it to end.
• It calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and for attacks on civilians and human-rights violations to be condemned regardless of which side commits them. 3032
• It supports stronger EU pressure on Israel, including sanctions, economic measures and an arms embargo. 222730
• It calls for investigations and legal accountability for alleged war crimes and for Israeli political leaders to face justice. 31
• It supports a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines, including East Jerusalem, with a free Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel. That stated framework recognizes Israel’s continued existence rather than calling for its elimination. 3338
• It explicitly condemns Hamas’s October 7 attacks on civilians as brutal and unprecedented. 34

These positions explain why the Israeli Foreign Ministry pointed to sanctions, boycotts and international legal proceedings. They also show why the lawmakers and their party reject the broader label of opposition to Israel itself: their published platform combines severe criticism of Israeli policy with support for a two-state arrangement in which Israel and Palestine coexist. 3033

What does the decision indicate about entry restrictions?

The immediate case concerns two elected European representatives who were traveling to engage with Palestinian institutions. It therefore differs from an ordinary refusal of entry involving a private traveler, even though Israel relied on the same immigration framework it uses for foreign nationals.

The decision also comes amid other reported restrictions affecting international visitors. Reports have described entry permits being revoked for U.S. activists who participated in protests or volunteer work in the occupied West Bank, while the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented cases involving foreign journalists and cited Israel’s security rationale for maintaining restrictions on unaccompanied journalist entry. 7913

Those cases do not by themselves prove a single policy motive, and Israel presents such restrictions as lawful responses to security concerns or activity it considers hostile. But the pattern raises a broader access question: when elected officials, activists and journalists who seek to observe or engage with Palestinian communities can be denied entry, independent scrutiny of conditions in the West Bank and Gaza-related areas becomes more difficult.

The clearest confirmed facts in this case are therefore limited but significant: Israel announced the exclusion before the MEPs arrived, invoked its Entry into Israel Law, and justified the decision by citing their political activity. The available material does not show a physical confrontation at a particular border point, and it does not independently resolve whether the government’s allegations about their statements were accurate.