That's not an exhibit of how this isn't state sponsored hijacking. That's a poor attempt at whataboutism, that has surfaced several times in ALL the threads on this topic.

There are several reasons that wasn't even remotely comparable, and the most obvious one is that that was diplomacy (the US closing airspaces and thereby giving the plane no choice but to land).

That kind of power is wielded by the US becuase it's a powerful global power AND because it has good diplimatic relations with the countries in question (France, Spain etc).

The pilot in the linked incident had to request to land (And could have returned to the starting airport but chose the closest, perhaps hoping to continue).

In the lukashenko incident, there were agents on board the plane. The emergency diversion wasn't to the nearest airport, but to the more distant Minsk. It's a hijacking. The bolivian case was not. No matter how shady the purposes were of the US trying to force the plane down, it doesn't chanhge that. They have every right to ASK their allies Spain and France to close their airspace for the Bolivian presidents' aircraft. Spain and France had every right to refuse (Of course knowing that their diplomatic relations with the US could take a hit).

Stop making this silly comparison please.