Malaysia’s Israel Ban Policy is not Washington’s to Dictate

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim recently made it clear that any Israeli nationals found in Malaysia would be deported immediately. This comes after reports emerged that Israelis using second passports had entered the country to participate in activities linked to the Network School in Forest City, Johor. Malaysian authorities are now investigating whether dual citizenship was used to bypass long-standing restrictions on Israeli passport holders.

Instead of respecting Malaysia’s sovereign right to investigate potential breaches of its immigration laws, eight US Democratic lawmakers—Greg Landsman, Josh Gottheimer, Jimmy Panetta, Dan Goldman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jared Moskowitz, Brad Sherman and Jake Auchincloss reacted by urging Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review security and economic ties with Malaysia. 

They even proposed suspending Malaysia’s participation in the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme unless Putrajaya reversed its policy within just 15 days. 

Malaysia’s response was equally firm. Anwar reiterated that Malaysia would not abandon a policy that has existed for decades simply because another country disapproved of it.

Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan also reminded Washington that Malaysia’s refusal to recognise Israel did not begin with the current administration. It has been a consistent national policy across successive governments.

Anwar also emphasised an essential distinction: the restriction concerns Israeli citizenship, not Jewish identity. That distinction matters. Criticism of the Israeli government, opposition to Zionism or refusal to establish diplomatic relations with Israel must not automatically be conflated with hostility towards Jewish people. Malaysia is entitled to oppose the policies and ideology of a state without targeting an ethnic or religious community.

Malaysia’s position did not appear out of nowhere. It is rooted in decades of support for Palestinian self-determination and a sovereign Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Refusing diplomatic recognition of Israel is therefore part of its broader foreign policy, not an arbitrary act of hostility.

Washington is free to disagree. But disagreement does not create a licence to dictate other states’ immigration rules. No foreigner has an automatic right to enter another country. Ultimately, border control represents one of the most definitive assertions of national sovereignty. Every government has the right to decide who may enter its territory based on its own laws, security checks and foreign policy interests. Why should Malaysia be any different?

The irony becomes impossible to ignore when we look at the US itself. During the recent 2026 FIFA World Cup, Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan arrived in Miami holding a valid US visa. Yet after an 11-hour immigration examination, he was denied entry over unspecified “vetting concerns.”

FIFA later confirmed that he would miss the tournament, ending what could have been the first World Cup appearance by a Somali referee.

READ: Malaysia reaffirms refusal to recognise Israel despite US pressure

If a visa does not confer an absolute right of entry and the US retains ultimate authority to decide who enters its territory, Malaysia likewise has the same sovereign prerogative. American lawmakers cannot justify Washington’s discretion to exclude honored international sports officials from entering their country. Yet they threaten Malaysia for imposing immigration restrictions rooted in its long-standing foreign policy.

The double standard becomes even more glaring when considering what Malaysia is actually being punished for. Malaysia faces threats because it refuses entry to Israelis. Meanwhile, the occupation of Palestinian territories, continued settlement expansion and the denial of Palestinian sovereignty rarely trigger comparable congressional pressure on Israel or calls to reassess Washington-Tel Aviv relations.

The US, for its part, should deal with this through diplomacy, not by bullying. American officials concerned about dual nationals can seek clearer consular procedures instead of threatening an extensive bilateral relationship simply because Malaysia refuses to normalise relations with Israel according to Washington’s terms.

More importantly, this episode exposes a much bigger problem in international politics. Western governments often champion sovereignty and the so-called rules-based international order. Somehow, those principles are suddenly applied selectively whenever a smaller country like Malaysia adopts a policy that conflicts with Western strategic interests. 

Hence, Anwar’s refusal to bow to American pressure is entirely justified and deserves credit. Malaysia’s message should remain unequivocal: we welcome constructive relations with all countries including the US. However, we will not be coerced into recognising Israel or normalising occupation.

Supporting Palestine is not a passing political trend, nor is Malaysia’s refusal to recognise Israel. It is a matter of justice, sovereignty and national principle—the very principle that makes external intimidation unacceptable in the first place. On this issue, Malaysia remains firm. Malaysia’s borders belong to Malaysia. That decision is ours to make, not Washington’s to dictate.

OPINION: The rise of Reform UK and Islamophobia

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.