Statements of the obvious are not always… obvious. Sometimes they need repeating to make a simple but vital point. So: every nation chooses its own capital.

It is, for example, no one’s business but France’s that Paris is its capital. Similarly, it is no one’s business but Israel that Jerusalem is its capital, with its government offices and the Knesset.

Once that fundamental point is understood, it follows that it makes sense for other nations’ embassies to be in Jerusalem – the capital of Israel.

It is at this point that the cry goes up that a dispute exists over Jerusalem. A further statement of the obvious is then necessary.

There is no remotely feasible deal between Israel and the Palestinians that does not include West Jerusalem as capital of Israel. So already, we are only now talking about demarcation arguments, not the basic principle of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Whatever may at some future point be agreed over East Jerusalem, the only people who seriously suggest West Jerusalem can no longer be counted as capital of Israel are those who deny the existence of Israel itself.

It is thus entirely appropriate for Liz Truss to float the idea of relocating the British Embassy in Jerusalem.

Indeed, one might think it perverse that the embassy is not there now. The US decision to move to Jerusalem led the way.

It is now clear that the UK — and others — should follow.