The government has now tabled its own amendment to the SNP motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. This change to the text calls for ‘negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting’, and then ‘moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire’. It also says that a ceasefire requires all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian government and – crucially – ‘Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and no longer in charge of Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution’.

It’s worth remembering that this is an Opposition Day debate, which is not binding on the government at all, and thus far the pressure has been on Labour, rather than Conservative, MPs. The SNP’s Westminster group leader Stephen Flynn addressed his open letter to Labour backbenchers, rather than Conservatives, and the government can put the whole debate on a one line whip for its own MPs to take the heat out of it and suggest they don’t turn up at all. That ministers are taking it this seriously is not just a reflection of the overall gravity of the issue: it also underlines how much language and political positioning on Gaza has changed in recent weeks.

All the parties have moved from a full-throttle support for Israel’s right to defend itself after the 7 October attack to a much more qualified position. There was initially an emphasis on unity across the House, but the three different wordings offered up by three different parties for tomorrow’s debate shows that the unity has gone. The differences might, to a casual observer, seem microscopic: the SNP is calling for ‘an immediate ceasefire in Gaza’, condemns ‘any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world’ (Rafah), and calls for ‘the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas’. Meanwhile Labour’s amendment calls for ‘an immediate humanitarian ceasefire’ which it clarifies with ‘Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October cannot happen again’, warns against a ground offensive in Rafah and calls for Hamas to return all hostages.

So the point of difference is really on how much a ceasefire should depend on Hamas being incapable of launching further attacks. The SNP doesn’t say that this is a condition, even though Hamas will not observe a ceasefire. The Labour amendment muddles its way to saying it wants an immediate ceasefire but that Israel shouldn’t have to stop fighting if Hamas ‘continues with violence’, which is precisely where we find ourselves at the moment. And then the government says that Israel shouldn’t be expected to stop fighting unless it is assured that Hamas simply cannot continue with violence. Just because something is microscopic does not mean it is not highly potent.