American politicians have no difficulty committing themselves to Israel’s survival. Hillary Clinton recently declared that if Israel were attacked by an Iranian nuke, the US, under her leadership, would “obliterate” Iran. John McCain defined Iran’s nuclear programme as the most serious crisis “since the Cold War” and identified Iran as “a danger to the region”. Barack Obama has also said that an attack on Israel — “America’s closest friend in the region” — would be unacceptable and threatened “appropriate action” in response.

European leaders have fulfilled their duty: they condemned Iran’s attacks on Israel and decried its obscene flirting with Holocaust denial. They have also flocked to Israel to celebrate its 60th anniversary. But when it comes to Israel’s right to defend itself, or Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, or Europe’s readiness to stand by Israel if Israel were attacked, the language is not so straightforward. Of 27 heads of government, only Italy’s former prime minister, Romano Prodi, has explicitly acknowledged Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. So did the Euro­pean commissioner Franco Frattini, in a speech in Israel earlier this year — and for which he was roundly criticised by his Brussels colleagues.

Europe defined Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s aggression as “disproportionate”. Israel’s actions in Gaza were also “disproportionate” — though Brussels officials find it hard to explain what they think would be a proportionate Israeli response to over 7,000 rockets fired by Hamas at Israeli towns. Similarly, Europeans have consistently criticised any suggestion of military action against Iran as a measure of last resort. European activism on Iran’s nuclear file was driven more by a desire to prevent military action against Iran than by a fear of Iranian success in its nuclear quest. Europe might voice concern for Israel — and it might condemn Iranian rhetoric. But European action would by no means be guaranteed if Iran’s rhetoric were followed by matching deeds.