When the Israeli Army last week forbade entry into the West Bank from Jordan by American anti-Israel, hard-left intellectual Noam Chomsky, it gave a gift wrapped present to the detractors of the Jewish state. Now they could add to their false claims of Israel being a fascist, apartheid state that it also rejects free speech. What, they argue, is the use of Israel calling itself a democracy if it cannot even get that right?

Dr. Chomsky was scheduled to teach at Bir Zeit University on the West Bank, which is a hotbed of violent Palestinian Islamic radicalism. After four hours of questioning – a time in which someone higher on the military and likely the political food chain had to be in touch with the situation – he was sent back to Amman, Jordan. The next day, from there via satellite he addressed the West Bank students.

The Israeli government did apologize and say that Dr. Chomsky was welcome to reapply to enter the country the day after his was denied. But Dr. Chomsky and his friends knew a good thing when they saw it. They understood that they could get much more mileage out of his being turned away.

Dr. Chomsky, who is Jewish and grew up with a heavy emphasis on Hebrew fluency, should have been allowed into the West Bank to speak his words. Was Israel worried that he would say things against their government, things that his students wouldn’t hear otherwise? Please.

What democracies should do is insist that such people – and their detractors—behave in a civilized manner that contributes to an intellectual furthering of ideas and discussions. (For me, this differs from Holocaust deniers in Germany being penalized as Israel’s situation is political in nature and not one of promoting genocide. And this, by the way, is an argument worthy of continuing in other postings.)

Dr. Chomsky’s views are highly disagreeable, but he is not violent and has never been associated with violence (unlike his late co-thinker, Columbia University’s Dr. Edward Said – a hardcore American-Palestinian nationalist.)

For certain some of Dr. Chomsky’s words could bolster the views of violent people. Yet, one cannot police how people may react to a noted intellectual’s talks or works. To do so would lead to a banning of all books – such as the Torah (which on the surface arguably teaches genocide of the Amalakites) and the sacred works of other religions with their acts of violence. Besides, it is far better to monitor Dr. Chomsky than to seek to outlaw him. Doing so only further inflames radicals and brings him their adulation.