Israel has moved to deny entry to Swedish European Parliament members Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin, citing their support for international legal action against Israelis and repeated accusations over Israel’s conduct in Gaza. A review of their public record shows substantial evidence behind parts of the Foreign Ministry’s case, while some of its broader allegations require more qualification.
Israel will bar two Swedish members of the European Parliament from entering the country ahead of a planned visit to the Palestinian Authority, the Foreign Ministry announced Sunday.
The Population and Immigration Authority was instructed to prevent the entry of Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin, both members of Sweden’s Left Party, at the request of Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar.
The two lawmakers were expected to arrive in Israel overnight on August 23-24.
According to the Foreign Ministry statement, the decision was made “in accordance with the Entry into Israel Law.”
The ministry accused Sjöstedt and Gedin of having “acted consistently against Israel” in recent years, including by supporting international legal proceedings against Israelis.
It further alleged that the two had publicly made what the ministry called false accusations against Israel involving “genocide, deliberate starvation, and intentional harm to children and medical teams.”
Israeli media reports have described the two politicians as “anti-Israel,” although the fuller Hebrew version of the Foreign Ministry statement reproduced by Israel Hayom did not itself use that description.
Why Israel Can Bar Them
The legal background is more significant than the initial announcement makes clear.
Israel amended its Entry into Israel Law in 2025 to add a specific ground for refusing entry to foreign nationals who publicly support the prosecution of Israeli citizens in foreign countries or international courts over actions carried out while serving in the IDF or another Israeli security body.
That amendment followed an earlier 2017 law allowing Israel to deny entry in certain cases involving public calls to boycott the country.
The Foreign Ministry did not disclose the exact subsection being used against Sjöstedt and Gedin. It said only that the decision was being taken under the Entry into Israel Law.
That means it would be premature to state that the 2025 amendment was definitively the legal basis for the decision.
However, the connection is notable because one of the ministry’s principal accusations is that the MEPs supported international legal proceedings against Israelis.
Both Backed Enforcement of ICC Warrants Against Netanyahu and Gallant
There is clear documentary evidence for that part of Israel’s case.
In November 2024, both Sjöstedt and Gedin signed a European Parliament question concerning International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.
The parliamentary question asked whether the European Commission would encourage EU member states to execute the warrants if given the opportunity.
It also raised the possibility of sanctions against the individuals subject to the warrants and against Israel.
That is substantially more specific than general criticism of Israeli policy: both politicians formally attached their names to a parliamentary initiative supporting enforcement of international arrest warrants against two Israeli leaders.
They have also supported efforts to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement and advocated sanctions and restrictions on arms trade with Israel.
Sjöstedt’s Own Words Go Further
Israel’s allegations concerning Sjöstedt are also supported by an official European Parliament transcript that was not fully identified in the initial research.
During a May 21, 2025 debate, Sjöstedt explicitly described what was happening in Gaza as genocide.
“Anyone who can prevent a genocide has a duty to do so,” he said, before adding that “what is happening is a genocide.”
He then alleged that children dying of starvation were doing so because of “conscious decisions” and accused the Israeli military of killing ambulance paramedics “in cold blood.”
Sjöstedt also alleged that snipers were shooting unarmed civilians and called for the EU-Israel Association Agreement to be terminated, arms trade stopped and “war criminals” brought to justice.
Those remarks provide direct evidence behind several elements of the Foreign Ministry’s characterization of his positions: genocide, intentional starvation-related conduct, alleged deliberate harm to medical personnel and support for legal action.
They remain Sjöstedt’s political allegations, rather than independently established findings simply because he made them.
Gedin Has Also Called Israel’s Actions Genocide
Gedin’s record is similarly explicit on genocide.
Speaking in the European Parliament in October 2025, she declared: “We are witnessing a genocide in real time.”
She called for increased pressure on Israel, political sanctions and prosecution of what she described as war criminals.
In another parliamentary speech in June 2025, Gedin described Palestinian mothers who were unable to breastfeed because they themselves were starving and spoke of children “wasting away from hunger.”
She also signed a European Parliament question titled “EU response to Israel’s planned illegal annexation and starvation of Gaza.”
That document accused Israel of the “weaponisation of hunger against Palestinian men, women and children” and called for sanctions.
One correction is important: Gedin signed that particular parliamentary question; Sjöstedt did not. Earlier research incorrectly attributed it to both lawmakers.
Not Every Israeli Allegation Is Equally Documented
The public record therefore supports a significant portion of the Foreign Ministry’s description, but not every allegation can currently be attributed to both politicians in precisely the same way.
For Sjöstedt, there is direct evidence that he accused Israel of genocide, alleged that children were starving because of deliberate decisions, and accused the Israeli military of killing ambulance medical personnel in cold blood.
For Gedin, there is direct evidence that she described Israel’s actions as genocide and signed parliamentary language accusing Israel of weaponizing hunger against Palestinian men, women and children.
However, the available material reviewed for this article does not establish a similarly direct statement from Gedin accusing Israel of intentionally targeting medical personnel in military attacks.
Her signed statement concerning the use of hunger against children supports an allegation of intentional harm through policy, but that is not necessarily the same thing as accusing Israeli forces of deliberately selecting children as military targets.
That distinction matters when assessing the Foreign Ministry’s sweeping statement about both lawmakers.
Their Record Is Strongly Critical of Israel, but There Is Additional Context
Neither politician’s position can be summarized only by the accusations highlighted by Israel.
In an October 2024 opinion article co-authored by Sjöstedt and Gedin, the two described Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack as a massacre in which approximately 1,200 people were killed.
Sjöstedt has also explicitly defended Israel’s right to exist.
In a 2024 interview, he rejected language that could be understood as opposing Israel’s existence and said Israel had “every right to exist behind secure and recognized borders,” while arguing that it had no right to maintain what he called an occupation.
That context does not change their extensive campaign for sanctions and legal action against Israel, but it complicates any suggestion that their political position simply amounts to rejecting Israel’s existence.
What Was Their Planned Visit?
This remains one of the largest unanswered questions.
The Foreign Ministry said Sjöstedt and Gedin had requested to come for a visit to the Palestinian Authority and were expected to arrive in Israel Sunday night.
No detailed itinerary has been publicly established.
It remains unclear who organized or invited them, whom they planned to meet, whether Ramallah was specifically on the itinerary, or whether they intended to visit Gaza or East Jerusalem.
There is also no confirmation that the trip was an official European Parliament delegation.
The distinction matters because previous Israeli entry bans have involved members of official European Parliament missions.
Sjöstedt and Gedin were reportedly among European lawmakers who had previously sought access to Gaza, but there is not yet sufficient evidence to establish that Gaza was part of this particular trip.
Israel Has Barred Foreign Lawmakers Before
The decision is not unprecedented.
In 2023, Israel denied entry to Spanish MEP Ana Miranda during a European Parliament delegation visit. Miranda had previously participated in a flotilla attempting to challenge Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.
In February 2025, Israel refused entry to MEPs Lynn Boylan of Ireland and Rima Hassan of France. Hassan’s advocacy of boycotts against Israel featured prominently in the explanation for that decision.
And in 2019, Israel barred U.S. Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from a planned visit after accusing them of promoting the boycott movement against Israel.
The Sjöstedt-Gedin case differs because the Foreign Ministry has prominently cited not only political advocacy or boycott activity, but support for international legal proceedings and specific allegations made about Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
Why an Israeli Entry Ban Also Blocks a Palestinian Authority Visit
Although the two politicians intended to visit the Palestinian Authority, Israel can effectively prevent that trip by denying them entry.
Foreign visitors normally reach Palestinian Authority-controlled areas of the West Bank through Israeli-controlled entry points, including Ben Gurion Airport and the Allenby/King Hussein Bridge.
There is no independently controlled Palestinian international airport or external border through which a European visitor can simply bypass Israeli immigration controls and travel to Ramallah.
As a result, Israel’s refusal to admit the two MEPs can effectively prevent their Palestinian Authority visit even if Israel itself was not their intended destination.
What Happens Next
As of late Sunday evening, no direct public response to the decision had been located from Sjöstedt or Gedin.
There was also no confirmed reaction from Sweden’s Foreign Ministry, the European Parliament or EU foreign-policy officials.
It was not yet clear whether the two MEPs would attempt to board their planned flight, whether they had been formally informed not to travel, or whether they intended to challenge the Israeli decision.
Those details may determine whether the case remains primarily an Israeli immigration decision or develops into a broader diplomatic dispute with Sweden and European institutions.
