It was an insignificant incident in an insignificant corner of the world. At the center of the dispute was Marion Fesneau-Castaing, cultural attaché at the French Consulate in Jerusalem. She and some of her colleagues, most of them European Union diplomats, showed up in the Jordan Valley last week, on Sept. 20, to provide tents and other equipment to Palestinians whose village had been demolished by Israel. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attempted to prevent them from entering the area and handing out the supplies, but the diplomats were insistent. The atmosphere deteriorated quickly. Here a push, there a shove, here a curse, there a tug, and Fesneau-Castaing found herself sprawled on the ground. She claimed that the soldiers had been violent. According to her, and to the EU’s high commissioner on foreign affairs, who rushed to demand clarification from Israel and to condemn its actions, the soldiers had been violent. 

Let’s be frank. We’ve seen IDF troops act violently under similar circumstances. In this particular incident, Israel responded that the French diplomat had slapped a soldier, that she had been the one who acted violently. There is even a short film clip that substantiates this claim, but it must also be admitted that the film clip is not entirely convincing. Fesneau-Castaing did extend her hand toward the border policeman’s face. She was obviously upset, but she barely hurt him. If that is all she did, he could have shown some composure and ignored her.

The real question is why Fesneau-Castaing was there in the first place. What was she hoping to do there, and what were all the other brave diplomats from other countries hoping to do there with her? They say that they had gone to ensure that international law was observed. They went to protect the local residents. That is their “diplomatic” way of saying that they went to sabotage Israel’s policies intentionally. In other words, Israel is hosting representatives of foreign states who take advantage of its protection to engage in conflict with its soldiers and to prevent it from exercising its authority in areas under its control. 

The source of the controversy is Israel’s decision to demolish buildings in the village of Khaled Makhul (also Khirbet al-Makhoul). It was certainly an unpleasant decision of the kind that doesn’t look good on tape. It is only natural that the Palestinians living in that controversial pile of tin shacks would be opposed to this decision. They attempted to prevent it, and they were joined by various human rights organizations. It is good that such human rights organizations exist, and it is good that there is someone who is trying to protect the weaker segments of the population. It is good that the case brought by Khaled Makhul’s residents made it all the way to the Supreme Court. This is the same court that forced the government to release people who entered the country illegally from three-year prison sentences without trial, causing an uproar on the right. Had the Supreme Court ruled that the village of Khaled Makhul should not be demolished, European diplomats would have applauded, and the state of Israel would have obeyed. This time, however, the judges ruled differently: Israel has the right to demolish Khaled Makhul. As is accepted in such cases, Israel acted within the confines of the law and demolished the village. And as has been customary, European diplomats set out to sabotage that decision. After all, it didn’t conform to their worldview.