Ro Khanna, IDF offer step-by-step war of words on West Bank clash

Democrat Ro. Khanna’s claims of a ”violent” confrontation with armed settlers on the West Bank were dramatically contradicted on by Israeli officials Monday.

Israel Defense Forces, Israel Police, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. and Khanna have each released competing narratives over an incident that has become a new battleground in the increasingly bitter debate over Israel’s conduct in the occupied West Bank.

On Saturday Khanna posted Saturday on X that “Israeli settlers, brandishing American-made M4s” detained him and other Americans while they toured the occupied West Bank last week.

“When the IDF arrived, they sided with the settlers and continued our detention,” Khanna wrote.

“They made a huge mistake.”

But Israeli authorities insist the incident unfolded differently.

According to the IDF, soldiers were dispatched near Khirbet Zanuta after receiving reports that foreign nationals had entered what was believed to be a closed military zone while Israeli civilians had blocked a nearby road.

The military said soldiers moved the civilians away from the area, verified there was no security threat and later confirmed the location “was not, in fact, a closed military zone” before allowing the convoy to continue.

“The process lasted several minutes,” the IDF said, adding that “there was no physical confrontation or violence between those involved.”

The military also disclosed that one armed individual at the scene was an off-duty IDF soldier whose conduct is now under review. It acknowledged Khanna’s visit had not been coordinated in advance and said procedures governing interactions with foreign diplomats would be reinforced.

Khanna, a Bay Area congressman who was accused of ignoring an invitation to meet former Israeli hostages and survivors of the horrific Hamas Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attack, has increasingly aligned himself with the Democratic Party’s left flank, clashing with long-time tech allies while embracing causes that have put him at odds with Israel’s government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the situation, saying that vigilantes will be punished while cautioning that many are people are living in fear and trying to stop “thousands of attacks.”

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Israel Police also disputed Khanna’s version, saying officers witnessed no violence and were informed by soldiers that the tour group had entered a designated closed military zone.

Police said body-camera footage showed the tour organizer being warned that future violations of the military order could result in immediate arrest because it was not his first alleged violation. Participants were then briefed on the military order and allowed to continue, police said.

Khanna’s office rejected the IDF and Israeli police accounts of the incident.

The congressman’s political team told The Post armed “extremist settlers” blocked the convoy from leaving for roughly an hour while several carried M4-style rifles.

Khanna’s camp said settlers surrounded the vehicles, cursed at members of the delegation, kicked tires, filmed passengers and repeatedly refused to let the convoy leave while Israeli soldiers stood by.

“The extremist settlers were laughing at us, videotaping us, kicking our tires and the IDF soldiers watched,” officials said.

Khanna’s team also said the military’s claim that the encounter lasted only several minutes was “demonstrably false,” arguing the convoy remained trapped for about an hour despite repeated efforts to leave.

They also disputed the suggestion that the visit had not been coordinated, saying the U.S. Embassy had been notified in advance and that local police were aware of the delegation’s itinerary.

While Israeli police said officers were informed the group had entered a designated restricted area, the IDF later said soldiers ultimately confirmed the location was “not, in fact, a closed military zone” before allowing the convoy to proceed.

Khanna’s office argued previous members of Congress had visited the same area and that there was no lawful basis for preventing the delegation from leaving.

The congressman’s aides also disputed the military’s portrayal of the soldiers’ role, saying members of the delegation repeatedly identified Khanna as a sitting U.S. congressman and informed soldiers they had already received clearance to depart. Soldiers nevertheless refused to move the settlers or permit the convoy to leave until police eventually arrived.

The dispute intensified after Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter publicly accused Khanna of creating a confrontation that could have been avoided.

“Let’s not lose our grip on the facts,” Leiter wrote on X.

Leiter said Khanna declined an offer to coordinate his itinerary with Israeli authorities and also chose not to coordinate with the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. He argued the congressman traveled alongside Palestinian activists, a representative affiliated with J Street and New York Times journalists before entering what soldiers believed was a closed military zone.

“The moment details of the Congressman’s identity were cleared, he was free to go,” Leiter wrote, calling the episode “a cheap, anticipated provocation.”

The exchange also drew in veteran Israeli journalist and Middle East analyst Haviv Rettig Gur, who challenged Khanna’s version.

“I was ready, at first glance, to believe it happened here. But it didn’t,” Rettig Gur wrote on X. “This wasn’t Israeli violence. This was agitprop for your American audiences.”

Rettig Gur argued the available evidence suggested soldiers appeared “mostly just confused” about whether the area remained a closed military zone after it had only recently reopened. 

He also questioned why Khanna’s delegation had not publicly released footage corroborating its allegations that settlers behaved violently enough to warrant criminal prosecution.

“If you produce that footage, I’ll join your demand for prosecution,” Rettig Gur wrote. “But if you don’t, I think it’s safe to assume you blew up a small inconvenience.”

Despite the sharply conflicting narratives, all sides agree that no physical violence occurred.