40,000 tourists stranded in Israel struggle to find a way to survive

Israel launched a sudden airstrike targeting several sites in Iran. The preemptive move immediately escalated regional tensions and prompted Israel to completely shut down its airspace. Ben Gurion International Airport, the country’s primary aviation gateway, suspended all commercial flights. Within hours, over 40,000 international tourists found themselves stranded, unable to leave the country via conventional air routes, while major cities like Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem activated air defense systems in response to missile threats.

Flight cancellations were announced shortly after the strike. Initially planned as a temporary halt lasting 48 hours, the airspace closure was later extended, especially for routes to Europe. Travel itineraries were upended, tourist sites closed down, and all domestic tourism activity was suspended indefinitely. Israel’s tourism sector, already struggling after months of declining arrivals, fell into a near-total standstill. Visitors who had come to explore the region now focused solely on seeking shelter, monitoring news, and finding viable ways to leave a country under fire.

With air travel off the table, alternative evacuation methods were urgently pursued. Land routes through Jordan and Egypt became the most feasible options. Thousands of tourists crossed borders via the Allenby Bridge or Taba checkpoints and continued their journeys from Amman or Cairo. Governments including Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States issued immediate advisories encouraging their citizens to take these paths. From nearby airports, commercial and charter flights were arranged to repatriate nationals or move them to safer areas.

Beyond land travel, some tourists were evacuated by sea. Civilian vessels such as the Crown Iris ferried passengers from Israel’s Ashdod port to Cyprus, where local authorities and international partners provided temporary shelter and onward flights. Several governments coordinated directly with Israel to stage special repatriation flights from third-party countries. At the height of the crisis, more than 2,000 individuals were evacuated daily via humanitarian corridors or emergency diplomatic operations.

On the ground, the situation remained tense. Many tourists reported confusion due to a lack of clear and timely information. In the absence of official guidance, they were left to navigate the crisis independently, hire private transportation, or wait for embassy support. Frequent air raid sirens compounded the stress, forcing travelers to seek shelter repeatedly, often in hotel corridors or basements. The sight of tourists sleeping near emergency exits and rushing into stairwells became a grim routine in the conflict’s early days.

Beyond physical danger, financial burdens also mounted. Canceled flights, combined with the exclusion of war zones from most travel insurance policies, meant that many had to pay out-of-pocket for extended accommodation, alternative transport, meals, and visa processing. Some travelers were denied entry into third countries due to visa issues or lack of proper documentation. With limited legal flexibility, fast-tracking temporary permits proved difficult. Many felt abandoned, caught in a situation no one had adequately planned for.

The Israel case reveals three major structural weaknesses in international tourism. First is the lack of standardized emergency response models. There is no universal protocol for evacuating tourists during armed conflict or large-scale crises. Each country acts independently, causing fragmented communication and leaving travelers reliant on personal judgment. Second is the limited scope of insurance policies. Most coverage explicitly excludes warfare, rendering them ineffective when travelers need support the most. Third is the local infrastructure’s inability to adapt. Despite having bomb shelters and hotel networks, there was no comprehensive system to distribute resources or provide multilingual communication for the international community.

This crisis offers practical lessons for both travelers and the tourism industry. Tourists must now treat crisis preparation as essential, not optional. This includes assessing political stability before traveling, monitoring foreign ministry advisories, preparing alternative evacuation routes by land or sea, and storing duplicate documents and emergency contacts. Purchasing insurance with extended coverage that includes conflict scenarios is no longer just advisable, but necessary.

Tour operators must also develop robust risk management strategies. Beyond marketing and service design, companies need contingency plans, staff training, and diplomatic partnerships. In emergencies, operators should be able to coordinate with airlines, embassies, and local governments to implement evacuation procedures swiftly. Tour contracts should include clear clauses on emergency support, rather than vague "force majeure" statements.

At the national level, governments and tourism boards must invest in crisis governance. This means integrating shelters into hotel and resort infrastructure, upgrading multilingual alert systems, and building central emergency coordination platforms for foreign visitors. Rather than focusing solely on boosting arrivals, countries must prioritize crisis response and reputation recovery.

In today’s volatile world, travel is no longer inherently safe. Sudden disruptions caused by geopolitical tension, natural disasters, pandemics, or armed conflict are increasingly common. The ability to respond flexibly, implement crisis plans, and maintain personal readiness are now fundamental to the success of any trip. Keywords like travel insurance with war coverage, evacuation planning, and crisis-ready operators are gaining prominence globally.

For Vietnam, as more citizens opt for self-guided trips to regions with potential instability, proactive preparation is critical. Monitoring government alerts, selecting agencies with emergency protocols, and understanding evacuation logistics are vital. Domestic travel companies should start embedding crisis management capacity into their services, train staff in real-time response, and build transparent handling policies. In a world where uncertainty is the norm, a safe journey is no longer just a destination—it’s a coordinated effort between individuals, businesses, and states.