A diplomat’s duties

The Israeli ambassador to Jordan has exceeded recognised diplomatic practices  and norms by attacking parliamentarians, for whatever reason.

It is not the envoy’s place to do so; if anything, one of diplomats’ duties is to build bridges of understanding between countries, not to incite hatred or present personal political stances.

Daniel Nevo was reportedly heard slamming lawmakers, in an interview with Israel Army Radio, for having recited verses from the Koran in tribute to the two young Palestinians killed after having attacked a Jerusalem synagogue.

Worse, Nevo suggested that the stance of the members of parliament was at variance with the policy of the Royal Court — as if he had been nominated the Palace’s spokesperson — clearly contravening diplomatic norms and crossing the limits of politically correct diplomatic behaviour.

It is not Israel’s, nor any other party’s for that matter, business to poke its nose in Jordan’s affairs or to try to drive a wedge between branches of government.

The Israeli ambassador must surely know his diplomatic duties and limitations.

It is one thing for Israel’s head of mission to report to his government on the domestic affairs of a country, and quite another to openly and arrogantly emit value judgements.

Jordan believes that dialogue can solve issues; hence the Israeli envoy is still here.

But if the interlocutor believes in holding monologues or considers himself above the norms dictated by his job, he should not be surprised if he is declared persona non grata.

The government might consider filing a complaint with Israel about the unbecoming behaviour of its ambassador, and see him censured for it.