The debate on Israel and Gaza has become increasingly polarised, with one side talking almost exclusively about the suffering of civilians in Gaza and the other side talking almost exclusively about the suffering of Israelis killed or captured by Hamas.

It is therefore important to say that, as with many other political debates, several things can be true at once.

Hamas terrorists can be guilty of terrible crimes and Palestinian civilians can be wholly innocent.

Israeli citizens can be the victims of unjustifiable suffering and the Israeli Government can be responsible for inflicting unjustifiable suffering on others.

Israel can be entitled to defend itself and it can go too far in doing so.

Some criticism of the Israeli Government can be legitimate and some criticism of Israel can be thinly-disguised anti-Semitism.

Most fundamentally, Israel and Palestine can both have a right to exist.

Indeed this last statement has been the declared policy of successive UK Governments.

The 'Two State Solution' which has been the UK's stated objective for many years relies, intrinsically, on the existence and the sustainability of both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.

That is what makes it a Two State Solution, and those of us who support it as the only equitable way forward in the region must accept the logic of our position – that both states should be supported. 

Israel's sustainability as a state, and even its existence, are under constant threat.

There are many in the world who believe the state of Israel should not exist and are prepared to attack it, through proxy terrorist organisations or even directly, as we saw with the Iranian rocket attacks in October of last year, 12 months after Hamas killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in Israel.

Israel's permanent vulnerability is not imagined, and Israel has the same right as any other state to defend itself and its citizens.

It is also legitimate for other states like the UK to support that right, in practice as well as in theory, with the supply of weapons Israel can use to defend itself.

Israel's right of self-defence under international law includes the right to use lethal force against those with lethal intent, including non-state actors like terrorist groups.

Having been involved in the process in this country, I know how difficult it can be for democratic Governments to make the right judgments on the use of force in self-defence, and that must be especially true for a country in a hostile neighbourhood which has just been subjected to an appalling terrorist attack, but the right of self-defence for states, as for individuals, is not without limits. 

Although those limits are not automatically breached by civilian deaths, particularly where terrorists hide among civilian populations – a brutal reality in Gaza – force used in self-defence must be reasonable and it must be targeted.

No state is entitled to defend itself by the collective punishment of a civilian population from which terrorists may be drawn.

No state is entitled to defend itself by denying essential humanitarian aid to a civilian population in order to increase pressure on terrorists, even if they are using or diverting some of that aid.

It follows that excessive self-defence can lead to breaches of international humanitarian law and breaches of international criminal law, but if we want accountability for any such breaches, we all have a responsibility to focus on what will deliver it.

Legal accountability is not established by political disapproval or by escalating rhetoric, it is established with evidence and a clear understanding of what must be proven.

The word 'genocide' is used often to describe Israel's actions in Gaza, but too often, wrongly, as shorthand for the causing of mass civilian casualties.

Those casualties may have been caused unlawfully, but that does not necessarily make them genocide.

The term is used because of its potency as a crime at the apex of criminal conduct, but that potency is precisely why that term should only be used where it really applies, or we risk diluting its significance. Genocide requires not just responsibility for multiple deaths but also specific intent to destroy a group because of its national, ethnic, racial or religious identity.

Excessive self-defence or even collective punishment are not enough, and this matters because we are allowing a debate about the highly contended and emotive concept of genocide to obscure the practical realities of any legal accountability.

If anyone deserves to face an international tribunal for their actions on Gaza, they will only get there if evidence against them is obtained, collated and documented in ways that preserve its integrity so that it can later be presented and decided upon.

The UK has particular experience and expertise in this area and, as I have argued before, we should be deploying it in Gaza. 

Throughout this conflict, most of us have agonised about what more may be done to end it.

All of us surely want to see the destruction in Gaza stop and Israeli hostages returned.

The United Kingdom cannot of course impose a solution, but the Government has in my view been right to criticise Israel's approach to humanitarian aid and to sanction individuals.

Although they are complicated and often finely-balanced judgments, I make no criticism of decisions to suspend some arms sales to Israel, but as I said earlier I believe that the ending of all arms sales to Israel would not be right.

Whatever measures are taken, criticism of and actions against the Israeli Government of Prime Minister Netanyahu can and should be distinguished from our support for the state of Israel.

Indeed, part of the tragedy of Israel's response to the October 2023 attacks on its citizens has been that it has squandered international sympathy and weakened Israel's international position.

It has largely fallen into the trap set by Hamas, who doubtless hoped their dreadful actions would prompt an over-reaction from Israel that would inspire further generations of violent activism against the state of Israel and damage emerging hopes for rapprochement between Israel and some at least of its Arab neighbours. 

We should also, however, focus on the other state in the Two State Solution. Palestine is not yet of course a state in the sense that Israel is. Recognising Palestine as a state is something UK Governments have said for some time that they intend to do, but will only do when it is most conducive to the peace process.

In other words, recognising Palestinian statehood is Government policy and is accepted as right, but UK recognition will be deployed tactically when it can do most good. Up to this point, I have agreed with successive Government assessments that this time has not yet come and that recognising the state of Palestine, though ultimately desirable and indeed essential to the fulfilment of the Two State Solution, would destabilise progress to peace in the region rather than enhance it.

It seems to me that two important things have now changed. The first is that, looking at Gaza today, it is apparent that hopes of peace are remote and worsening, necessitating a reassessment of the balance between risk and reward in the decision to recognise the state of Palestine. Several recent chances to improve the position have come to nothing.

I think therefore that we have come to a tipping point, where the mission would be better described as to rescue the Two State Solution rather than to decide what would best enhance it.

The second thing that has changed is the increasing willingness of Israeli Ministers to argue that Palestinians should not be allowed to remain in part or all of Gaza, alongside the acceptance or encouragement of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.

This gives rise to a real risk that there will be little left of Palestine to recognise when recognition is offered. 

I have therefore reached the conclusion that UK recognition of the state of Palestine should happen now, preferably in conjunction with other countries and preferably in combination with the recognition of Israel by other countries who have been reluctant to offer it, so that we can reinforce the Two State Solution by reinforcing both states involved.

I believe the recognition of the state of Palestine is now a step the UK can and should take to help preserve the Two State Solution, which is in serious jeopardy, and I would support the Government if it chooses to take that step.