On Sunday 18 October, the European Union stated that it “strongly condemns the latest attacks by violent settlers in the West Bank, including on European diplomats.” This came following the attacks of 17 October 2026, in which European diplomats and Catholic representatives were reportedly targeted in Taybeh. While drawing attention to the longstanding crisis experienced by Palestinians, whose suffering frequently unfolds without immediate international visibility, this statement poses a concern in its motives. The nominal reference to “European diplomats” being targeted can be interpreted as a perpetuation of a hierarchy in how human suffering is recognised.
This focus dilutes trust in the legitimacy of their diplomatic concern, as it seems to reflect a trend of how there’s more intensive global coverage around a conflict when the victims are Westerners, suggesting that their sympathy is contingent on the victim’s ethnic or national identity. According to the European External Action Service’s 2025 report on Israeli settlements, spanning January 2025 to December 2025, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) documented 1,828 settler attacks resulting in casualties or property damage across the West Bank in 2025, compared with 1,420 in 2024 and 1,189 in 2023. These figures suggest a compounding pattern of violence, rather than a series of isolated confrontations.
There are legitimate reasons why attacks on diplomats attract particular attention, as assaults against them can threaten diplomatic relations and the capacity of international organisations to operate. Moreover, the EU has condemned settler violence against Palestinians before and called for accountability, as seen in a statement in August 2026 when it made “repeated calls for Israel to take “decisive action” and ensure accountability for those responsible for crimes linked to settler violence.”
Nevertheless, the disparity between diplomatic visibility and the persistent scale of violence warrants scrutiny. When attacks on European representatives generate immediate statements, it is necessary to scrutinise whose security becomes an international priority. The UN reported in March 2026 that more than 36,000 Palestinians had been displaced amid settlement expansion and increasing violence by Israeli security forces and settlers, during the 12 months to October 2025. Whether the EU had legitimate reasons to highlight diplomatic casualties or not, the sensitivity of the subject and the fact that diplomats have not been the primary targets make this emphasis inappropriate.
This is especially true as detached and dehumanising language has been frequently used in media in reference to Palestinians – as has already been indicated in 2024 by The Guardian who reported that an analysis of BBC coverage found “that humanising terms such as “mother” or “husband” were used far less often to describe Palestinians, while emotive terms such as “massacre” or “slaughter’” were almost only ever applied to the Israeli victims of Hamas’ atrocities.”
International outrage will to some extent inevitably reflect strategic political interests. However, the credibility of international institutions depends on sustained, egalitarian advocacy for all individuals and communities whose human rights have been compromised, not privileging their own personnel.
“EU Flagga” by bobbsled is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
Related
Selective Sympathy: The EU’s comments on settlers in the West Bank
On Sunday 18 October, the European Union stated that it “strongly condemns the latest attacks by violent settlers in the West Bank, including on European diplomats.” This came following the attacks of 17 October 2026, in which European diplomats and Catholic representatives were reportedly targeted in Taybeh. While drawing attention to the longstanding crisis experienced by Palestinians, whose suffering frequently unfolds without immediate international visibility, this statement poses a concern in its motives. The nominal reference to “European diplomats” being targeted can be interpreted as a perpetuation of a hierarchy in how human suffering is recognised.
This focus dilutes trust in the legitimacy of their diplomatic concern, as it seems to reflect a trend of how there’s more intensive global coverage around a conflict when the victims are Westerners, suggesting that their sympathy is contingent on the victim’s ethnic or national identity. According to the European External Action Service’s 2025 report on Israeli settlements, spanning January 2025 to December 2025, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) documented 1,828 settler attacks resulting in casualties or property damage across the West Bank in 2025, compared with 1,420 in 2024 and 1,189 in 2023. These figures suggest a compounding pattern of violence, rather than a series of isolated confrontations.
There are legitimate reasons why attacks on diplomats attract particular attention, as assaults against them can threaten diplomatic relations and the capacity of international organisations to operate. Moreover, the EU has condemned settler violence against Palestinians before and called for accountability, as seen in a statement in August 2026 when it made “repeated calls for Israel to take “decisive action” and ensure accountability for those responsible for crimes linked to settler violence.”
Nevertheless, the disparity between diplomatic visibility and the persistent scale of violence warrants scrutiny. When attacks on European representatives generate immediate statements, it is necessary to scrutinise whose security becomes an international priority. The UN reported in March 2026 that more than 36,000 Palestinians had been displaced amid settlement expansion and increasing violence by Israeli security forces and settlers, during the 12 months to October 2025. Whether the EU had legitimate reasons to highlight diplomatic casualties or not, the sensitivity of the subject and the fact that diplomats have not been the primary targets make this emphasis inappropriate.
This is especially true as detached and dehumanising language has been frequently used in media in reference to Palestinians – as has already been indicated in 2024 by The Guardian who reported that an analysis of BBC coverage found “that humanising terms such as “mother” or “husband” were used far less often to describe Palestinians, while emotive terms such as “massacre” or “slaughter’” were almost only ever applied to the Israeli victims of Hamas’ atrocities.”
I Forgot the Lib Dems Exist
International outrage will to some extent inevitably reflect strategic political interests. However, the credibility of international institutions depends on sustained, egalitarian advocacy for all individuals and communities whose human rights have been compromised, not privileging their own personnel.
“EU Flagga” by bobbsled is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related