One important difference between the two statements is the vagueness of Lady Ashton on the nature of the inquiry. The European Parliament put an end to that by specifying it had to be an international inquiry, making it clear therefore that Israel, guilty before proved so, could not possibly be trusted to conduct an impartial, independent, transparent and credible investigation into the events of the night of May 30/31 on board the Mavi Marmara.

Differences aside, there is something disconcerting in these two statements. Both Lady Ashton and the Parliament issued a verdict of condemnation while at the same time calling for an inquiry which, presumably, should rest on the principle of "innocent until proved guilty". If we know who the guilty party is, why hold an inquiry?

Then there was the Parliament's decision to debate draft Israeli legislation which called for NGO transparency on foreign funding — even after the proposed law's aspects that vexed European critics of Israel had been removed. 

Just as unusual was de Gucht's lofty statement, one day after his interview, that anti-Semitism had no place in the world, given that only 24 hours earlier he had so brazenly besmirched Jews everywhere. Was he condemning himself? Was he distancing himself from what he had just said? Or just pretending that he hadn't said them? And these are just recent examples of Europe's irrational, kneejerk responses to Middle East issues where Israel is blamed. 

We shall leave it to others to offer an accurate characterisation of de Gucht's comments. But, surely, if one were to be fair, it is not the Jews who have displayed, over the years, a consistent propensity to act irrationally towards the Middle East. It is the EU. And de Gucht's comments, whatever else they may be, are the latest evidence of that irrationality.