Unspeakable violence should not be answered with unspeakable violence

At a time when the prestige of parliament is standing low, the display of unity and determination tempered by humanity in the chamber of the Commons is a reminder of how the House can still rise to the occasion.

The prime minister, the leader of the opposition, the leader of the SNP parliamentary group, the Liberal Democrat Layla Moran and others spoke eloquently and movingly for the nation as a whole, and the people suffering in Gaza and Israel.

The critics of Israeli policy were temperate and the prime minister careful in his language about Israel’s right to defend itself. He resisted the temptation to polarise: if only the rest of his cabinet had the sense to.

It is indeed Hamas and Hamas alone that is immediately responsible for the tragedies of the past 10 days, and those to follow. Yet that can never justify anti-Muslim hatred. It was heartening and right that the government should stand with Britain’s Muslim communities and that Rishi Sunak so clearly declared that.

There is a difference between Islam, a religion of peace, and the perversions of it by violent Islamists. In the same spirit, there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between the Palestinian people and Hamas, which uses those very people as convenient human shields.

Outside parliament, indeed within yards of it in recent days, Britain has been given a less welcome reminder of how easily conflicts far away can divide communities in the UK. That is why measured language and calm debate by politicians is so crucial in ensuring that bitterness and hatreds elsewhere are not transferred here.

There are few areas where consensus, across the West if not the world, is more precious than in the cause of peace in the Middle East, and the two-state solution as the only practicable way forward. As Mr Sunak argued, we cannot lose sight of that “better future” for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Mahmoud Abbas, the beleaguered president of the Palestinian National Authority, deserves our support and respect.

Mr Sunak, supported across the House, has got Britain’s policy priorities right, as well as his own tone of voice. The greatest danger of all is an escalation and widening of the conflict, which is grievous and dangerous enough even as things stand.

Britain, though once the colonial power in Palestine, and still influential in the region, is a minor player in military terms. The despatch of a Royal Navy task group with a dual mandate of providing additional security and intelligence to Israel, and assisting in the provision of aid is the right response, but necessarily modest when set against the two aircraft carriers sent to the eastern Mediterranean by Joe Biden.

The importance of the gesture is in helping to present a solid Western front to all in the region – a military and diplomatic message that no regional power can use Israel’s moment of difficulty as their own opportunity.

That is aimed firmly at Iran, widely suspected to be mentors, and worse, of Hamas; and Tehran would be wise to heed the warnings. The Iranians say they cannot stand by while the tragedy in Gaza unfolds, but they are in fact partly responsible for it, and their further interference, including via Hezbollah, will only make matters worse for them.

In Ukraine, in the Middle East, and in persecuting its own people, the Iranian regime has been playing a dangerous game, and one they will surely lose. Again, that is common cause across the political divide.

There are, however, some hard decisions to be taken. The prime minister’s pledge of £10m in additional humanitarian aid to Gaza is welcome, as are equivalent pledges from the EU and America. But how and when can this material be delivered? Mr Sunak stresses the culpability of Hamas and Israel’s right to defend itself; but it can and must minimise harm to civilians, and abide by humanitarian norms and international law.

We must stand with Israel – but as a candid friend. James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, said over the weekend that Western support for any ally is contingent on them abiding by the rules of war. Israel must, therefore, allow supplies of water, fuel, food and medicines into Gaza; and Egypt should do the same. Foreign, third-party nationals must be allowed to get out of the war zone – and Israel also needs to rethink the (effectively) forced evacuation of Gazan civilians south, not least the patients in hospitals.

Life cannot continue in any part of Gaza without clean water. What is Israel’s “exit strategy” if it is not to occupy Gaza on an indefinite basis? How will this part of Palestine rebuild? How will Israel deal with the next generation of Hamas militants? Why is the defeat of Hamas seen as an event rather than a long-term process?

The unavoidable, painful, insoluble problem is that Israel cannot fully exercise its right to defend itself while Hamas embeds itself among innocent Palestinian families. Cannot, that is, while holding to the civilised values expected of the only democracy in the region; and retaining the backing of its allies. That is the quietly spoken voice of the White House, and there are hints in the statements of the British government that support for Israel has to be reconciled with international conventions.

In other words, Israel cannot behave as Hamas or (as is often alluded to) Isis. The Israel Defence Forces is not the moral equivalent of the jihadis, and nor should they and their leaders behave like them – or anything like it.

They will not intend to do so, but it is not clear that the present siege and the imminent ground invasion is consistent with maintaining moral and legal standards. It is also not easy to see the steps that Israel can take to secure the safety of its citizens, but that is no reason to exacerbate the tensions and sacrifice more innocent lives.

It was, as ever, cruel and cynical of Hamas to take hostages, and it is not a tactic that can be rewarded; but the safety of the 10 British citizens and others has to be taken into account as Israel considers its next steps.

As one voice of experience from Northern Ireland said in the chamber of the Commons, unspeakable violence should not be answered with unspeakable violence – for the sake of Israel’s own future too.