Some people clearly have difficulty calling Hamas a terrorist organization. Faced with the horrors committed on October 7 on Israeli territory, part of the left prefers to speak of the "Palestinian forces" and, in a burst of generosity, agrees to denounce "war crimes," pretending to forget that this expression only applies to regular armies, or at least to combats between professional soldiers.

The butchery planned by Hamas did not shake the certainties of the pro-Palestinian camp. The usual arguments quickly returned. Violence is certainly condemned, but it is seen as the legitimate response to the violence of the "Israeli settler". If the Palestinians become barbarians, it is because they are desperate. The same argument is brandished for the riots in the suburbs: it is despair that leads to violence. The reverse causality is never considered: what if it were violence that caused misery?

Since the Israelis are necessarily executioners, they do not deserve any compassion, while the Palestinians are entitled to treasures of indulgence. The Hamas killers are described as an isolated minority in a pacifist and humanist ocean. We want to forget that Hamas won the rare elections in the region and that it has a significant popular supportThe Arab street, so quick to march against the slightest drawing deemed blasphemous, has not rushed to disavow Hamas. In France, the public authorities are expecting less a mass uprising of Muslims against the Islamists than a new wave of anti-Semitism.

The creation of two states continues to be presented as the solution that will guarantee peace. But no one dares to ask the awkward question: how much violence would have occurred if Gaza had been a fully sovereign state, able to procure all the weapons it could wish for? Is it really too much to ask of the Palestinians to demand that they abandon their ancestral hatred before claiming to have a fully-fledged state?

The announcement of the suspension of European aid to the Palestinians came as a surprise: could this be a turning point in European policy, traditionally so accommodating towards Hamas? The European Commission quickly set the record straight: this announcement was nothing more than an unfortunate initiative by a vague commissioner, Hungarian to boot, and it has therefore was immediately invalidatedAnd to make people forget this blunder, the European Union hastened to announce that it was going to increase its financial support for Gaza, while swearing on its word that this aid would never benefit Hamas.

But this guarantee is a big joke, duly denounced by Alain Destexhe ou Jean Quatremer. So much naivety or hypocrisy leaves one speechless. What would one say about a country that, during the last war, financially helped Hitler's Germany by explaining that not all Germans were Nazis and that this aid was strictly humanitarian?

If the dissolution of the pro-Hamas movements is now on the table, we cannot forget that the European Union is also part of the problem, it which now has no qualms about promoting the Islamic veil and supporting Islamist associations.

Europe is peace, we generally like to say. However, we are beginning to seriously doubt it. The gas agreement signed last year by the Europeans with Azerbaijan had the effect of turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia knows that its time is numbered: Europe will not come to its aid. The progress of jihadism in the Sahel does not seem to worry it any more, just as it does not seem to be very worried about the strengthening of countries like Turkey and China, strengthening to which it nevertheless makes its full contribution.

Future generations are likely to laugh bitterly when they are told that Europe prided itself on being synonymous with peace.