The problem with Garton Ash's assertion - and with the sanctimony of the demonstrations - is one of consistency. One can express outrage in the name of human rights and other related values - in which case, this outrage should recur every time humanitarian crises visit defenceless civilian populations. But we know that the outrage of those who agitate for Palestine is selective. After all, without denying or diminishing the suffering and the loss of life in Gaza, the numbers are not as staggering as elsewhere. As recently noted by London-based writer Sali Tripathi, since the beginning of the second intifada in late 2000, there has been an average of just under 50 civilian deaths a month in the territories. By contrast, since 2003, an average of 1,400 civilians a month died a violent death in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the average monthly body count is 120. Now let's venture into unfamiliar media terrain - African conflicts where journalists are scant and bodies abound. In Congo, the average monthly conflict-related deaths in the last ten years is 45,000 - more Congolese die in a month than Israelis and Palestinians combined since the second intifada began. In Sudan, there were approximately two million deaths in the past 17 years - that's just under 10,000 a month, 200 times more than in Gaza.

The moment our leaders acknowledge this inconsistency of principles - the moment we point out their lack of urgency in calling for ceasefires unless the conflict involves Israel - it all comes down to interests. If outrage and "every principle for which Europe claims to stand" are what move European diplomacy in the Middle East, then the same should apply to every other humanitarian tragedy in the world. And yet, that is not so. Zimbabwe, where millions are starving or dying of cholera makes Gaza look mild by comparison, but there is no sign yet that Nicolas Sarkozy is leaving Carla to save Zimbabweans from their tyrant-made famine. Principles are universal; their application is particular. That politicians and marchers dress the promotion of interests under the rhetorical cover of universal platitudes can be excused, but not overlooked or ignored. Once it is clear that it is an interest rather than a principle that marches against Israel promote, we should be in a better position to answer the opening question - what serves Europe's interests best?